On Wednesday 2005-August-24 17:25, Thomas Jones wrote:
> > I once saw an online automated generator of scholarly papers. It
> > was hilarious! It used language just like this.
>
> Hehehe. Ok...lets make it simple for you. Various security
You really should Google that. It was loads of fun. I generated some
scholarly papers under my name and sent them to colleagues "for review
and comment." They were ashamed to admit that it was all a bunch of
gibberish to them. I laughed for days. :)
If I could remember the URL I would post it.
> > Okay, I think I see a little substance here. The poster wants
> > something which lists every possible valid netfilter rule. Right?
>
> Seemingly, you are the the person to do this feat? Realistically, I
> don't expect you or anybody else to have knowledge of all the rules.
> I have already developed the basic structure of the DTD. I just want
Ah, *that* was the piece I was missing. You are accepting the rulesets
submitted as valid (probably) and are simply using them to test your
DTD. Is that it? I thought you were compiling it from the submitted
rulesets, and that, I guess we agree, is not possible.
> Because you do no not fully understand does not make it wrong.
I still don't, but at least the gibberish issue is cleared up. :)
--
mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0"
or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
