On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:44:52PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:55:02PM +0200, Ed White wrote:
Request to introduce a public revision number to PF and pfctl.
no.
I had code doing this, and even pfctl erroring out with a nice message
if kernel and userland are
On Monday 20 October 2003 18:55, Ed White wrote:
Request to introduce a public revision number to PF and pfctl.
This is the answer Theo sent me some minutes ago:
Incorrect.
pf became incompatible way more than that.
No, most software
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:55:02PM +0200, Ed White wrote:
Request to introduce a public revision number to PF and pfctl.
no.
I had code doing this, and even pfctl erroring out with a nice message
if kernel and userland are out of sync, but theo refused it.
--
Henning Brauer, BS Web Services,
I had code doing this, and even pfctl erroring out with a nice message
if kernel and userland are out of sync, but theo refused it.
Why?
Julf
Monday, October 20, 2003, 7:44:52 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
Request to introduce a public revision number to PF and pfctl.
HB no.
HB I had code doing this, and even pfctl erroring out with a nice message
HB if kernel and userland are out of sync, but theo refused it.
That's strange. Why? I
