Thanks for the answers. I was trying to think through what scenarios might
require either behaviour. The best solution I suppose is for an attribute
allowing the choice. I would like to give something back and contribute a
bit of code - if 2014 allows it :-)
Graham
On 20 December 2013 04:59, Bob
On 16-Dec-13 08:44, Graham Harwood wrote:
> My question is, what reason does the CA for the firewall not update an
> application rule if one already exists?
The quarter came up tails. :) That was the behavior I needed when I
designed the firewall extension. Both behaviors are "right." It'd be
rea
That’s one of those hard ones, where we don’t know if things were different
because that made them work or because someone messed them up. Most of the time
it seems that it is more likely that they were changed to make them work, so
that is what we usually err towards, but it would be perfectly
Hi guys,
Probably a question for Bob (from reading previous mails. BTW great effort
on the release, thanks) and possibly only a point for clarification but
here goes..
My question is, what reason does the CA for the firewall not update an
application rule if one already exists?
I assumed this m
4 matches
Mail list logo
