On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Jason Stechschulte wrote: > > > My question: > > Is ipmasq really worth using? It almost seems more difficult keeping > > track of multiple .rul files, plus ipmasq has many .def files that seem > > to set up rules also. From the looks of it, it seems like it may be > > easier to just set it all up manually myself and have full control over > > everything rather than having to learn to do things the ipmasq way. > > Having never used it I can't definitively comment, but it sounds like a > beast from your description. Files everywhere? Yuck. > > I use a script which I wrote which uses a config file to find out what to do > and which sets up all the appropriate things I want. Never had any > problems, I just install the .deb I made for it, (no debconf yet), edit the > config file, and off it goes. And I install a lot of firewalls. >
Yup. This means that everybody need to write their own scripts. And the start-stop sequences. And the debconf interface. Also consider the fact that shell code is hard to debug (for instance: if you have a syntax error at an execution path you rarely use and forgot to test, your script may blow-up unexpectedly) Having configuration from script (in a good way) can make the script more robust to syntax errors and such (they can be detected at the beginning, and not half-way through execution). Displacer: I haven't worked with ipmasq . If you like perl, you may consider using fwctl. -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
