From owner-freebsd-net Wed Sep 9 00:34:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA01401 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:34:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA01395 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:34:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id HAA17889; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:41:23 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199809090541.HAA17889@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: Will the TEE function of IPFW be ever implemented/necessary ? To: archie@whistle.com (Archie Cobbs) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:41:23 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199809090702.AAA21914@bubba.whistle.com> from "Archie Cobbs" at Sep 9, 98 00:02:07 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Luigi Rizzo writes: > > > I'd prefer that someone implemented it, because a few people have > > > asked for it, but on the other hand if no one is even going to implement ... > Well, all I can say is that I don't know what people might want > to use it for, but people always seem to find a way to suprise us but you said a few people have asked for it! so what they want it for... > I'm just making this up and it's not a great example, but my point > is that it's not for you or me to decide that there are no applications except for a very tiny detail... who is going to write this code :) but let's do as you suggest, and leave it alone... it's just about ten lines of useless code after all :) cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message