No. Modifying a general purpose tool for a specific (albeit common) use case is stupid. Any properly implemented warning would cause pfctl to exit non-zero, which would break automated scripts that check the exit code of pfctl. You would have to add a whole new option to ignore your specific use case, and even that would require modifying existing scripts.
I wish they would ban you from this list already. I'm sick of seeing your reply to every thread when you never have anything constructive to say. On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 05:43 +1100, John Tate wrote: > It's just whining! Perhaps if should only do it if it has an Internet IP > address not a LAN or WAN one involved. > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Janne Johansson <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 2011/12/11 John Tate <[email protected]> > > > >> > >> So I have a suggestion worth considering, if the line "block in all" does > >> not appear pfctl -nf should perhaps spit out a warning. Much like you've > >> done with your pretty compilers over there. > >> > >> > > There are still lots of reasons to run PF even if you don't want "block in > > all" for a default, so whining on all the other uses you couldn't imagine > > would not be very productive. > > > > -- > > To our sweethearts and wives. May they never meet. -- 19th century toast
