From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 15 14:16:57 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D29737B401
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 May 2003 14:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665FA43F85
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 May 2003 14:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4FLGqxm003493;
	Thu, 15 May 2003 23:16:52 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 May 2003 23:07:48 +0200."
             <20030515210748.GC10171@freebie.xs4all.nl> 
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 23:16:52 +0200
Message-ID: <3492.1053033412@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: jeff@walters.name
Subject: Re: Comment on devfs.conf 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 21:16:57 -0000

In message <20030515210748.GC10171@freebie.xs4all.nl>, Wilko Bulte writes:
>On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:55:41PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> 
>> I must admit that I should have looked at this, now that I have, I fully
>> agree:  The policy setup at boot should be not just applied once, but
>> made the default ruleset.
>
>Would/should this be 5.1-R material?

absolutely!

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.