From owner-freebsd-ipfw Tue Jul 27 10:13:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC7615069; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:13:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA15485; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:13:30 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25874; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:13:29 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:13:29 -0600 Message-Id: <199907271713.LAA25874@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matthew Dillon Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" , Joe Greco , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: securelevel and ipfw zero In-Reply-To: <199907270316.UAA49808@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199907270316.UAA49808@apollo.backplane.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > :That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow people to have an unsophisticated setup, > :just because a sophisticated one is available. It would be useful to have > :a per-firewall-rule counter, decrement it on each match if logging and > :set, and be able to reset to something higher. > : > : Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ > > There may be some confusion here. I am advocating that we *allow* the > zeroing of counters at secure level 3. Sorry Matt, I missed that in my previous posting as well.... Ignore my previous followup. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message