> On May 30 12:14:22, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > There is a difference between an empty table and a nonexistent table,
> > > and there is a difference between a table not existing at load time
> > > and table being deleted.
> >
> > Since you have such firm opinions, perhaps you should write your
>
On May 30 14:29:01, Tony Abernethy wrote:
> Jan Stary wrote:
> >There is a difference between an empty table and a nonexistent table,
> >and there is a difference between a table not existing at load time
> >and table being deleted.
>
> Exactly what difference in behavior is expected?
If a table
On May 30 12:14:22, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > There is a difference between an empty table and a nonexistent table,
> > and there is a difference between a table not existing at load time
> > and table being deleted.
>
> Since you have such firm opinions, perhaps you should write your
> own packet
Jan Stary wrote:
>There is a difference between an empty table and a nonexistent table,
>and there is a difference between a table not existing at load time
>and table being deleted.
Exactly what difference in behavior is expected?
This seems too much like NULL pointer exceptions in Java,
where th
> There is a difference between an empty table and a nonexistent table,
> and there is a difference between a table not existing at load time
> and table being deleted.
Since you have such firm opinions, perhaps you should write your
own packet filter.
> Le 2012-05-30 07:05, Jan Stary a icrit :
> >It seems that pf will accept rules in pf.conf that refer
> >to a nonexistent. I came to know about his in
> >a sadly laughable way, trying to figure out why pf redirects
> >even the connections comming "from" to spamd.
> >Apparently, this gets treated a
And what should happen when you delete a table ? PF should stop because
there a rule that use that table ? No, it should only don't match
anymore. Ruleset must load even if the're nonexistent tables for several
reason like tables are deleted if empty, etc.
Le 2012-05-30 07:05, Jan Stary a icri
It seems that pf will accept rules in pf.conf that refer
to a nonexistent . I came to know about his in
a sadly laughable way, trying to figure out why pf redirects
even the connections comming "from " to spamd.
Apparently, this gets treated as an empty table.
This is on
OpenBSD 5.1-beta (GENERIC
8 matches
Mail list logo
