On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Bob K wrote:
> > I could be mistaken, but it would seem to me that the number of
> > individuals that really want to deny all traffic to and from their
> > machine(which is the current result of setting firewall_enable to no)
> > is relatively small.
>
> If the variable name gets changed to, say, LOAD_FIREWALL_RULES, with the
> rc scripts spitting out a warning (and otherwise behaving as expected)
> if ENABLE_FIREWALL is encountered, then the number of people that gets
> surprised by the change would be zero. That number would be higher
> than zero if the variable behaviour is changed.
The variable behavior is non-sensical. Do you continue doing things that
don't make sense simply due to inertia? (I feel a PHB story coming on...)
Further, doesn't the act of adding variables "suprise" people?
> As for people that want to deny all traffic, I can think of at least one
> case where this might be desired: People who only want connectivity
> enabled after a PPP or SL/IP or some scripted link with user
> intervention comes up.
It is always easy to find edge cases which is why I try to avoid speaking
in absolutes. In any case, do you believe that there are thousands of
people out there running systems in the particular fashion you describe
above?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Stealthgeeks,LLC. Operations Consulting
http://www.stealthgeeks.net
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
