On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 04:46:33PM -0400, Mike Frantzen wrote: > Aha! That is a real issue. The way we had talked about solving that up > in Calgary was to extend proc so rules could be tied to a process. When > the process goes away, it calls back into PF which removes the rules. > Were we talking about that in Calgary or in DC a year ago??
That was Calgary, on the couches in front of the conference rooms, where other hotel guests looked a bit scared at this crows af crazy guys ;-) > Hell, I > can't remember. Bob was running around in a tizzy with excitement > though (now that was a sight!) oh yeah... > > Now, after all that talk, I should note that, with proper usage of > > static rules (especially the user keyword) most proxy servers would > > never need to insert rules (or can be designed to remove that requirement) > > However there are isolated cases where it would be useful see > > the recent post by Matthew Sweet for instance. That is why I could not > > easily come up with a real world example. > It is a cool concept, I'll give you that. But I still don't see the > problem you're trying to solve. yeah, I see a lot of complexity, and I'm not sure for what. I don't see the benefit right now.
