From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7426A1381F3 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 63487E09DA; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:57:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D269E09C2 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCDE33EFA4 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:57:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.133 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.595, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.536, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49DFVbBibanZ for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:57:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6B9833EFEA for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:57:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VVMAz-00026w-Qb for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:57:45 +0200 Received: from lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.42.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:57:45 +0200 Received: from vaeth by lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:57:45 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Where to put advanced routing configuration? Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:57:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <524DD388.9020507@fastmail.co.uk> <524F39F6.4040409@orlitzky.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-26 (Linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 9ff5e9b0-4ee7-467c-b788-c8b3dc5948bc X-Archives-Hash: 6596f74477bfa25ce82ac4336dd9b588 shawn wilson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> >> 1. The iptables-restore syntax is uglier and harder to read. > > I don't get this - the syntax is [...] > What am I missing or how is this uglier? Argument separation (e.g. if you have arguments with spaces); it seems to work most of the time if you quote into "..." and escape backslash and doublequote signs inside with backslash (this is what the mentioned script of firewall-mv does), but there are cases where this is not accepted; e.g. quoting every word was not accepted. Since the format is undocumented, this is all ugly trial-and-error, and only the iptable maintainers know whether it remains the same in the next iptables release.