Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:58:14 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>, Paul Fardy <pdfardy@mac.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus Message-ID: <p0510141bb880ccd683df@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <p05101415b880b7928804@[128.113.24.47]> References: <15448.64681.401219.163184@guru.mired.org> <5F46C986-16DB-11D6-8CEC-00039359034A@mac.com> <20020201173641.GA48397@student.uu.se> <p05101415b880b7928804@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:52 PM -0500 2/1/02, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >It *is* reasonable for them to assume the same >behavior would be true for network_enable=no. I meant "firewall_enable=no" here! If the option *was* called "network_enable=no", then it would be VERY reasonable to expect the machine to be locked-down! :-) [it wouldn't surprise me if I have done that in some other messages, too. Sorry about that. Maybe I should check to see if my own brain's ethernet cable is plugged in] -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0510141bb880ccd683df>