On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Nate Williams wrote: > > Note that "do not enable firewall" (which is implied by firewall_enable="NO") > > is *not* equivalent to "disable firewall". > > Maybe we're having an English language question. > > If something isn't enabled, doesn't that imply that it's disabled? Last > I checked, enabled/disabled were binary operations.
It would so appear...but there is this alternative: The firewall is already on. If there is not an explicit disable, it is still on. firewall_enable="NO" wouldnt be a "disable" just a "do nothing. if on, leave on, if off, leave off." It IS confusing though. Especially when man rc.conf says: firewall_enable (bool) Set to ``NO'' if you do not want have firewall rules loaded at startup, or ``YES'' if you do. that sort of implies that it would disable it...but only an implication. I guess that it leaves to the obvious that if it is enabled through a method other then the rc.conf, it is up to the user..er..admin...to know that. anyway. i probably should have read how this all started...:p ...david --- david raistrick (no longer deep in the south georgia woods) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.expita.com/nomime.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
