Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx04.cyberus.ca (mx04.cybersurf.com [209.197.145.108])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0VETItT024934
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:29:18 -0800
Received: from mail.cyberus.ca ([209.197.145.21])
	by mx04.cyberus.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
	id 1CvcYC-0005CU-Aa
	for netdev@oss.sgi.com; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:29:12 -0700
Received: from cpe0030ab124d2f-cm014500000962.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([24.103.99.32] helo=[10.0.0.9])
	by mail.cyberus.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
	id 1CvcYD-0004g4-Ss; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:29:14 -0500
Subject: Re: dummy as IMQ replacement
From: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>
Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca
To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Cc: Hasso Tepper <hasso@estpak.ee>, netdev@oss.sgi.com,
        Nguyen Dinh Nam <nguyendinhnam@gmail.com>,
        Remus <rmocius@auste.elnet.lt>, Andre Tomt <andre@tomt.net>,
        syrius.ml@no-log.org, Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@dsl.pipex.com>,
        Damion de Soto <damion@snapgear.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050131140630.GD31837@postel.suug.ch>
References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <200501311438.01118.hasso@estpak.ee>
	 <1107175673.7847.130.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <200501311502.56796.hasso@estpak.ee>
	 <20050131132819.GB31837@postel.suug.ch>
	 <1107179140.7840.157.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <20050131140630.GD31837@postel.suug.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: jamalopolous
Message-Id: <1107181750.7847.198.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 
Date: 31 Jan 2005 09:29:10 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/650/Sun Jan  2 19:00:02 2005
	clamav-milter version 0.80j
	on 127.0.0.1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-archive-position: 1088
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: hadi@cyberus.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev
Content-Length: 1065
Lines: 29

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 09:06, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > Yeah, that would fix it. Note however, that i am trying to highly
> > discourage use of iptables and i would rather let people who use
> > iptables to suffer;-> (sounds rude i know).  At some point i plan to
> > remove the dependency on iptables altogether.
> 
> Heh, I think it isn't rude, giving people a little clap to join
> the "good side" isn't that bad ;->
> 

Unfortunately killing it totaly would break all sorts of scripts.
Wish we could do this though ;->
Go ahead and push the patch to Dave even - I am just gonna look the
other way;->

> > So i am not sure whether i should encourage pushing of this patch or not ;->
> 
> I don't care that much, the patch is there, everyone can patch and
> distributions can pick it up. I agree that we should remove the
> dependency on iptables but I'd also like to see the dependency on the
> action bits to go away at the same time.

Agreed. 
The main reason not to use the iptables bits is performance; also its
just the wrong spot in the stack.

cheers,
jamal