From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?G=E1sp=E1r_Lajos?= Subject: Re: Policy targets... Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:13:01 +0200 Message-ID: <4651C50D.7080605@freemail.hu> References: <464441F7.3050808@freemail.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: Petr Pisar Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Hi! Petr Pisar =EDrta: > On 2007-05-11, G?sp?r Lajos wrote: > =20 >> Hi all, >> >> I was reading the iptables manual because I needed the correct argumen= ts=20 >> of the policy (-P) command. >> Here it is: >> >> -P, --policy chain target >> Set the policy for the chain to the given target. See t= he=20 >> section TARGETS for the legal targets. Only built-in (non-user-define= d)=20 >> chains can >> have policies, and neither built-in nor user-defined=20 >> chains can be policy targets. >> >> So I checked the TARGETS. >> >> TARGETS >> A firewall rule specifies criteria for a packet, and a target.= =20 >> If the packet does not match, the next rule in the chain is the=20 >> examined; if it does >> match, then the next rule is specified by the value of the=20 >> target, which can be the name of a user-defined chain or one of the=20 >> special values ACCEPT, >> DROP, QUEUE, or RETURN. >> >> My question is: What is the difference between the ACCEPT and the RETU= RN=20 >> target in policy ??? :D >> >> =20 > I think this is missunderstadning in man page. If you read the TARGETS > section carefully you could see here is nothing about policy even if -P= > paragraph referres to it. > =20 Okay. That is right. There is nothing about policy in TARGETS section.=20 But there is no "POLICYTARGETS" section! :D > My opinion is ACCEPT and DROP only are valid policies. I don't know > where I have this idea from but I'm pretty sure that other targets have= > not sense in policy context. > > -- Petr I agree! I was just curious. :D Swifty