Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:53:33 -0800 From: Erick Mechler <emechler@techometer.net> To: Rudolf Polzer <divzero@gmail.com> Cc: muc-lists-freebsd-security@moderators.muc.de Subject: Re: ipf question Message-ID: <20050120195333.GQ19851@techometer.net> In-Reply-To: <slrncuta62.tj6.divzero@message-id.durchnull.ath.cx> References: <6BBE5C5603D0D611A06F0002A5D6556405FAA185@nyschx22psge.sch.ge.com> <20050119180131.GL19851@techometer.net> <slrncuta62.tj6.divzero@message-id.durchnull.ath.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:: > ... port 136 >< 140 keep state :: > :: > The < and > operators are not inclusive. :: :: I know it has been defined like that. But why? :: :: Why wasn't an inclusive .. operator used? There must be a reason for :: this, but which one is it? AFAIK, there is no such thing as an inclusive gt or lt operator.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050120195333.GQ19851>