From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Feb  9 18:46:45 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA02374
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA02369
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA25217; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:49:37 +1100 (EST)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:49:36 +1100 (EST)
From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: ipfw command line - opinions wanted.
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970210134608.427Y-100000@panda.hilink.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


I was about to commit patches to ipfw.c to add a '-q' (quiet) option.
This will prevent the "Flushed all rules" message from appearing, but in 
its present version still presents the question "Are you sure?" if the 
'-f' flag is not present.

Question: Should '-q' imply '-f' and prevent the "Are you sure?" prompt 
          on a flush?

Thanks,

Danny