"flags S" -> "flags S/SA" might count. Although, you could call the first version incorrect in any case.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:08:28 -0000 "Dom De Vitto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I don't recall there EVER being a non-backward compatible change to :PF - can anyone correct me on this? :(cross-posted to pf@ as they are the PF experts) : :Dom :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :Dom De Vitto Tel. 07855 805 271 :http://www.devitto.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :-----Original Message----- :From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of :Steven S. :Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 7:56 PM :To: 'Bryan Irvine'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] :Subject: Re: 3.4 upgrade : :I remotely upgraded some 3.2 machines with no syntax changes in pf. One of :the machines is used as a multi-segment firewall, doing NAT, rdr, and :standard pass/block and no changes were needed (that I have discovered). : :-Steve S. : :Bryan Irvine wrote: :> I'm upgrading a 3.3 install to 3.4 tomorrow. The only part I'm :> concerned with is getting pf back and running. I'm only using :> standard pass/block, rdr, and antispoof. Is there any syntax changes :> I need to know? Anywhere I can read up on changes to pf? :> :> --Bryan : -- The surest protection against temptation is cowardice. -- Mark Twain
