On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow people to have an unsophisticated setup,
> :just because a sophisticated one is available. It would be useful to have
> :a per-firewall-rule counter, decrement it on each match if logging and
> :set, and be able to reset to something higher.
> :
> : Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
>
> There may be some confusion here. I am advocating that we *allow* the
> zeroing of counters at secure level 3.
Which is what I am advocating against.
>
> -Matt
> Matthew Dillon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Nate Williams
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Brian F. Feldman
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Tim Vanderhoek
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Matthew Dillon
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Achim Patzner
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Doug
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Brian F. Feldman
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Matthew Dillon
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Brian F. Feldman
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Matthew Dillon
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Brian F. Feldman
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Julian Elischer
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Nate Williams
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Achim Patzner
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Nate Williams
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Joe Greco
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Nate Williams
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Joe Greco
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Matthew Dillon
- securelevel too course-grained? Sheldon Hearn
- Re: securelevel too course-grained? Matthew Dillon

