On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:45:41AM +1100, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:25:08AM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > > Itojun still has significant concerns about the new default behavior.
> > 
> > He's not the only one.
> 
> Count me among that group.
> 
> However, my concerns are at least in part because I haven't seen
> a compelling case *for* the new behaviour.  I'm sure there must be
> one.

Me neither, and I never even had to investigate that sysctl so far, so
the current default didn't seem to have that much going against it..

Cheers,

Patrick