From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Brian J. Murrell" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.4/2.5] Date: 29 Jun 2003 16:31:50 -0400 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <1056918710.23456.80.camel@pc> References: <1056913883.1068.70.camel@exile> <1056915465.9614.59.camel@pc> <1056918054.1068.96.camel@exile> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3dZu5hxjndlOaiMo9h68" Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: "Filip Sneppe (Cronos)" In-Reply-To: <1056918054.1068.96.camel@exile> Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org --=-3dZu5hxjndlOaiMo9h68 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 16:20, Filip Sneppe (Cronos) wrote: > Well not a lot of common scenarios, I will give you that, but > I just figured that in some situations, people run services=20 > on different ports, not the standard ports the services are normally > associated with. Sometimes because those ports are blocked by > another firewall, sometimes to confuse portscanners. That is all fair enough I suppose. I have no specific objection to it, just didn't do it myself because I could not see the need. If Harald (and/or the core team) see fit, I have no objection to adding it. b. --=20 Brian J. Murrell --=-3dZu5hxjndlOaiMo9h68 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+/0y1l3EQlGLyuXARAkTbAKCGBbxgRQvFyZJd2oGYKEWxdjpLDQCcDqJQ ZkpS5otwqyXM7tdQ3L926Ic= =VTQU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-3dZu5hxjndlOaiMo9h68--