> On 16/11/15(Mon) 10:03, Ricardo Mestre wrote: > > Hello! > > > > Like Benoit said, monitor still needs dns all the time, but since pledge > > was being called there again with dns pledge then I thought it wouldn't > > abort. Taking that into consideration and looking at it a little bit > > more, how about this? > > IMHO this doesn't make sense if I explicitly say "route -n monitor" I'd > prefer not to have any address resolved.... > > Otherwise I just say "route monitor". > > I'd add that on the list of bugs discovered by pledge(2).
Yes... the monitor command should honour the -n flag.
