Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:35:20 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Achim Patzner <ap@bnc.net> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Message-ID: <199907271735.LAA26067@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <19990727193349.K58970@bnc.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907262255510.35843-100000@janus.syracuse.net> <199907270307.UAA49737@apollo.backplane.com> <199907271712.LAA25861@mt.sri.com> <19990727193349.K58970@bnc.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > How do you figure? Currently, the kernel will quit 'logging' denied > > packets when the counter reaches a specific (compiled-in) number. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Then what is > > net.inet.ip.fw.verbose_limit: 0 Well I'll be. You learn something new everyday. :) > made for and why does it help changing it? 8-) Ahh. However, unfortunately, this 'limit' changes *all* of the per-rule counters, when in fact you may only want to change a single counter. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907271735.LAA26067>