Why yes, Yes it is. But I am happy with the current Shorewall modifications. I would be willing to test it on one of my systems though :) On 10/1/2011 16:15, Mark van Dijk wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:18:56 +0100 > Ed W<li...@wildgooses.com> wrote: > >> Note, based on my previous email I might come across as having a >> particular preference towards json - it's not the case! This >> suggestion is purely based on the similarity with what you are doing >> and an existing config file format - reduction/re-use seems >> attractive! > This actually might be interesting, but let's not put it on Tom's > plate. Maybe you can show some kind of comparison? > > In fact, you could just go ahead and fork shorewall... and when it > works as you envision you can invite list members to review it. At > least one other list member (Christ Schlacta - is that your real name?) > seems to be interested. > > - Mark > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2 > _______________________________________________ > Shorewall-users mailing list > Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2 _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
