From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 2 09:08:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFB916A4BF for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout2.freenet.de (mout2.freenet.de [194.97.50.155]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387524401E for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:08:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ino-qc@spotteswoode.de.eu.org) Received: from [194.97.55.147] (helo=mx4.freenet.de) by mout2.freenet.de with asmtp (Exim 4.21) id 19uDi7-0003Lh-02 for freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:08:51 +0200 Received: from p3e9baab9.dip.t-dialin.net ([62.155.170.185] helo=spotteswoode.dnsalias.org) by mx4.freenet.de with asmtp (ID inode@freenet.de) (Exim 4.21 #5) id 19uDi6-0001bv-Jc for freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:08:50 +0200 Received: (qmail 6614 invoked by uid 0); 2 Sep 2003 16:08:50 -0000 Date: 2 Sep 2003 18:08:49 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Clemens Fischer" To: "Kelly Yancey" In-Reply-To: <20030831184821.C13778-100000@gateway.posi.net> (Kelly Yancey's message of "Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:52:10 -0700 (PDT)") References: <20030831184821.C13778-100000@gateway.posi.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org cc: luigi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: hostnames resolving problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:08:54 -0000 * Kelly Yancey: > On 30 Aug 2003, Clemens Fischer wrote: > >> that would not be my cup of tea, because by this ipfw(8) becomes >> "unscriptable", ie. i'd have to grep(1) for messages and start from >> scratch again. i guess this problem should be detected and handled >> ahead of running ipfw(8). note that you can always use `-p >> preprocessor' for this. > > No you don't, it just warns, not exits. You'll get warnings > telling you that what you are doing is a Bad Idea, but you can send > them to /dev/null if you don't care. i know, but this doesn't put me at ease. since hosts can choose do implement DNS round-robin any time, this might not only be a bad idea, it might well be plain wrong, and i wouldn't even know. the patch should error-exit IMO, or people who need this feature should dream up their own m4 macros to handle this "feature". clemens