On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:56:58 +0530, Payal Rathod <payal-iptables@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message <20030913022658.GD1667@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:14:25PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:51:41 +0200, > > > > ..lose "NEW". > > > > > > Just what I said, wasn't it ? > > > > ..nah, but you probably _meant_ it. ;-) > > I think he said it :). Look below. > > > | $IPTABLES -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT > | $IPTABLES -A FORWARD -m state --state NEW -s 125.125.125.0/32 -p tcp > | \ -m tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT > > -Payal ..wrong snippet. ;-) Reread the thread, and you'll see both I and Cedric weren't to clear on that we meant to say, we _implied_ things instead of actually _saying_ them, I snipped to hard and lost Cedric, and added to the confusion. I'm talking about the "NEW" under this bit: " > $IPTABLES -P FORWARD ACCEPT > ^^^^^^ ". -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
