On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:54:41AM +0000, Quietman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 04:56:12PM +0000, thomas lakofski wrote: > > ipchains -L -n > Excuse me if I'm missing the point, but what will this show other than > any rules you already have in place? And obviously, how many packets have been intercepted by that rule. Cheers, Tom -- On-line, adj.: The idea that a human being should always be accessible to a computer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: portsentry dangerous? hardly; RTFM. (was Re: checking... Tim Haynes
- Re: portsentry dangerous? hardly; RTFM. (was Re: che... Peter Cordes
- Re: portsentry dangerous? hardly; RTFM. (was Re: che... Rainer Weikusat
- Re: portsentry dangerous? hardly; RTFM. (was Re: che... Rainer Weikusat
- Re: portsentry dangerous? hardly; RTFM. (was Re: che... Quietman
- Re: portsentry dangerous? hardly; RTFM. (was Re: che... Quietman
- Re: portsentry dangerous? hardly; RTFM. (was Re: che... Rainer Weikusat
- Re: portsentry dangerous? hardly; RTFM. (was Re:... thomas lakofski