As Okan stated, your 5.6 man page is still correct for 5.7.  It is
only of issue when you move to 5.8-Release in November.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man5/pf.conf.5?query=pf%2econf
<- -current and 5.8, use/will use divert-to

(Can't give you a link to the online pf.conf man page for 5.7 as it
hasn't been snapped for 5.7-release) My man pages on my 5.7 hosts
specify rdr-to

Cheers,

Jason.


On 11 June 2015 at 11:51, Edgar Pettijohn III <ed...@pettijohn-web.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Okan Demirmen wrote:
>
>> On Wed 2015.06.10 at 15:43 -0500, Edgar Pettijohn III wrote:
>>> I've been using spamd for a while now.  I was looking through my pf.conf 
>>> and noticed that I had the following rules in regards to spamd.
>>>
>>> table <spamd-white> persist
>>> table <nospamd> persist file "/etc/mail/nospamd"
>>> pass in log on egress proto tcp from any to any port smtp \
>>> rdr-to 127.0.0.1 port spamd
>>> pass in on egress proto tcp from <nospamd> to any port smtp
>>> pass in on egress proto tcp from <spamd-white> to any port smtp
>>> pass out log on egress proto tcp to any port smtp
>>>
>>> Everything seems to work correctly, but I was thinking the rdr-to rule was 
>>> wrong so I looked at spamd(8) and it shows a divert-to rule instead.  When 
>>> I change it to divert-to I get the following error:
>>>
>>> # pfctl -vf /etc/pf.conf
>>>
>>> /etc/pf.conf:19: address family mismatch for divert
>>> pfctl: Syntax error in config file: pf rules not loaded
>>>
>>> What should I do to fix this.  Is the rdr-to rule sufficient or do I need 
>>> to change it?
>>
>> Depends. 5.7 and prior used rdr-to; and -current switched to divert-to.
>>
>> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html#20150518
>>
>> Thanks
>
> I guess I missed that line.  However, I think my system is out of whack.  I 
> upgraded to 5.7, but the spamd man page is from 5.6.  Thanks for the lead.
>
> Edgar
>
>



-- 
"If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88MPH, you're
gonna to see some serious shit" - Emmett "Doc" Brown

Reply via email to