:That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow people to have an unsophisticated setup, :just because a sophisticated one is available. It would be useful to have :a per-firewall-rule counter, decrement it on each match if logging and :set, and be able to reset to something higher. : : Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ There may be some confusion here. I am advocating that we *allow* the zeroing of counters at secure level 3. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Alfred Perlstein
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Nate Williams
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Brian F. Feldman
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Tim Vanderhoek
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Matthew Dillon
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Achim Patzner
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Doug
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Brian F. Feldman
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Matthew Dillon
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Brian F. Feldman
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Matthew Dillon
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Brian F. Feldman
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Julian Elischer
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Nate Williams
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Achim Patzner
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Nate Williams
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Joe Greco
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Nate Williams
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Joe Greco
- Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Matthew Dillon
- securelevel too course-grained? Sheldon Hearn