From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun  3 19:29:02 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C915916A469
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sun,  3 Jun 2007 19:29:02 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from cmarlatt@rxsec.com)
Received: from core.rxsec.com (core.rxsec.com [64.132.46.102])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5981613C43E
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sun,  3 Jun 2007 19:29:02 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from cmarlatt@rxsec.com)
Received: (qmail 15237 invoked by uid 2009); 3 Jun 2007 18:55:36 -0000
Received: from 10.1.0.101 by core.rxsec.com (envelope-from
	<cmarlatt@rxsec.com>, uid 2008) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms 
	(clamdscan: 0.86.2/1102. spamassassin: 3.0.4. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms. 
	Clear:RC:0(10.1.0.101):SA:0(-4.4/5.0):. 
	Processed in 1.290514 secs); 03 Jun 2007 18:55:36 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0
X-Antivirus-RXSEC-Mail-From: cmarlatt@rxsec.com via core.rxsec.com
X-Antivirus-RXSEC: 1.25-st-qms (Clear:RC:0(10.1.0.101):SA:0(-4.4/5.0):.
	Processed in 1.290514 secs Process 15227)
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.1.0.101?) (cmarlatt@rxsec.com@10.1.0.101)
	by core.rxsec.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 18:55:35 -0000
Message-ID: <46631034.5030700@rxsec.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:02:12 -0400
From: Chris Marlatt <cmarlatt@rxsec.com>
Organization: Receive Security
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070306)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
References: <20070601103549.GA22490@localhost.localdomain>	<4662E18E.6010404@delphij.net>
	<20070603161633.GA32255@harmless.hu>
	<200706032052.12077.max@love2party.net>
In-Reply-To: <200706032052.12077.max@love2party.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:32:56 +0000
Cc: Gergely CZUCZY <phoemix@harmless.hu>, Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>,
	freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:29:02 -0000

Max Laier wrote:
> 
> Okay, but why?  Is there any reason you can't use pftpx (or the newer 
> version of ftp-proxy) from the ports tree?  Why does ftp-proxy have to be 
> in base?
> 

Why does named, or tftp, or openssh, or ntp, or,.. or...

Why shouldn't there be have a fully packaged pf implementation in the 
base OS?