Hi,

> Indeed...  pfsense finally did it so people would shut up (I guess
> IPCop does it, and the devs were tired of hearing about it), and
> personally, I usually find it more annoying than useful (though it can
> be turned off).

primary issue: some people want m0n0 to beep upon a certain point.

Isnt the usual development method to implement functions which arent major
changes to the whole system IF people want them? Certainly there are features
in m0n0 that I dont use, or didnt want and didnt ask for - but they are
there; because some people wanted them.

another adjunt. features are added because 'competing systems' have them.
Once again, IPCop has a beep so to stop the few people that go 'but XXXX has
it, why doesnt m0n0 have it' int his trivial example there is no reason why
not to. 

but I would say have the beep OFF by default :-)

it appears that we've hit some form of virtual deadlock over a trivial
change which a few people see no need for and are therefore arguing not
to have that feature. 

on a FUN note though. a collegue and I are currently looking at nstx
(tunnel your traffic through DNS) - can anyone think of trivial methods
to blocking this traffic - it fundamentally means you no longer have a captive
portal..it works quite well after the initial connection setup. 
the 2 ways I currently have in mind are

1) block packets by matching CNAME or TXT in the packet... but that, of course,
would involve massive amounts of false hits and un-diagnosable application
failures for all normal/valid users
2) reengineer the DNS to reject CNAME/TXT queries from the range of IPs
which are captivated

there...thats better than dicussing beeps (and now I'll be hit for thread hijacking etc etc etc)

alan