From owner-freebsd-ipfw Tue Jul 27 13:24:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from gemini.bnc.net (gemini.bnc.net [195.247.233.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC9015481; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:23:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) Received: (from ap@localhost) by gemini.bnc.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA75174; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:20:33 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ap) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:20:33 +0200 From: Achim Patzner To: Nate Williams Cc: Joe Greco , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Message-ID: <19990727222033.A75086@bnc.net> References: <199907271951.NAA27049@mt.sri.com> <199907271956.OAA13811@aurora.sol.net> <199907271959.NAA27155@mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: <199907271959.NAA27155@mt.sri.com>; from Nate Williams on Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 01:59:58PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I'd like to see people other than you, I, and Matt discussing this. > Other people who use this feature of IPFW that have an opinion one way > or the other should speak up. I must admit being a bad boy - I'm using ipfw for firewalling and accounting: "log" rules for catching bad guys (and I'm not caring for a limit there as I'm preferring a DoS by crashing the firewall over someone getting through unnoticed) and the counters for accounting (that's why I'd like to have some "read and reset" function so I can milk them without dripping too much). Achim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message