i'm happy with the way it functions, but would be *ecstatic* if it also stored user-assigned numbers to the rules and used them for insert operations.
for my company's use, i have to assign numbers to the rules and keep them in-sync with ipfilter's numbering. it's not so easy when rules can be in my list but not yet in ipfilter's list, but i have to insert them at the right place when they get added to ipfilter so that the matching order is correct... -rhonda > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Fretwell > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 6:54 AM > To: ipfilter > Subject: Re: rule numbering ('@ decnumber' syntax) > > > Michal Mertl wrote: > > > I'd like to hear what do you all think about changing the > ipfilter a bit > > to store some rule number in the rule itself. I understand we would > > probably have to do that to maintain backwards compatability. > > > Ipf and ipfw are separate entities. Granted, they both have their > pro's/con's, but to try to make one behave the same as the > other, you may > just as well use the other. If ipfw fills your requirements, > then by all > means use it, but I cannot see the point in wanting ipf to > become a clone, > or vice versa. > > I am sure I will not be the only one on this list who is > quite happy with > the way it already functions. > > > Matt >
