Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:04:08 -0800
From:      Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>
To:        Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
Cc:        "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk>, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Sanity check in ipfw(8)
Message-ID:  <3E2D8B98.10809@tenebras.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030121004353.GF351@nitro.dk>
References:  <20030121004353.GF351@nitro.dk> <20030120165940.A65713@xorpc.icir.org> <20030121012046.GG351@nitro.dk> <20030120173223.A83271@xorpc.icir.org> <20030121004353.GF351@nitro.dk> <3E2CE0FA.2080301@tenebras.com> <20030121095159.A61957@xorpc.icir.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Luigi Rizzo wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:56:10PM -0800, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> ...
>
> >>yes i honestly believe that it is better to avoid the userland code
> >>being too smart. E.g. ipfw accepts things such as
> >>
> >>	allow ip from any to any 53
> >>
> >>which matches both tcp and udp to port 53 -- ipfw1 did not accept
> >>this, and needed two rules for this very common thing.
> >
> >Shi'ite!  Documentation?
>
>
> well it's in the ipfw manpage. ...


Yes, I guess it is.  The problem is that the manpage attempts to
document two commands which are syntactically and semantically
different -- enough that they should be documented separately.



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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E2D8B98.10809>