Re: tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- From: "David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:55:35 -0700
tony.andreoli@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I'm setting it to a carriage return:
IFS="
"
As I've done a million times before. The result is the ability to read
a text file one line at a time rather than one word at a time. That
functionality still works fine, it's just that tcpdump is choking.
With IFS set to just a newline, bash interprets "tcpdump -i eth0" as
"tcpdump" "-i eth0" instead of "tcpdump" "-i" "eth0", which is what it
expects and requires.
DS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- From: tony . andreoli
- Re: tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- From: tony . andreoli
- Re: tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- References:
- tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- From: tony . andreoli
- Re: tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- From: Dale Dellutri
- Re: tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- From: tony . andreoli
- tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- Prev by Date: Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- Next by Date: Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- Previous by thread: Re: tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- Next by thread: Re: tcpdump + IFS = no sense?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|