On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Moritz Grimm wrote: > Moritz Grimm wrote: > > Using the parameter ``-q "(q_med, q_pri)"'' does not result in any error > > message, however, I have no proof whether this works or not. Actually, > [...] > > Hm, and while I'm at it ... how can things like these be properly tested and > > debugged in the first place? Other than making educated guesses with > [...] > > Replying to myself here ... I found out that I can get the rules inserted by > ftp-proxy with > > pfctl -a ftp-proxy/xxxxx.y -vvsr > > and it looks like the queue statements were accepted. However, the ACKs > definitely don't end up in q_pri but my default queue (q_def). I compared that > to what happens when i use "-q q_low", and indeed, everything ends up there > with only one queue name as the argument. > > Now I'm just a bit confused, but at least I know that maybe, in theory, it > could work the way I want. :-)
Your testing is correct. ftp-proxy does not understand the queue() syntax like pfctl does, so only one queue name for now. -- Cam
