On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 20:13 -0600, Bill Marquette wrote:
> OK, apparently I can't read English...disregard (unless you choose not
> to of course). Upon the 4th read of this, I deciphered the meaning,
> which wasn't all that difficult to figure out if I'd read it slower
> the first three times. Er
OK, apparently I can't read English...disregard (unless you choose not
to of course). Upon the 4th read of this, I deciphered the meaning,
which wasn't all that difficult to figure out if I'd read it slower
the first three times. Erg. *putting on the dunce cap*
--Bill
On 11/28/05, Bill Marquet
On 11/28/05, Sanjay Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I would like to make one request to the project design...users
> be given easily configured & modular way to remove (i.e. not compile in)
> services they do not want on the pfsense box, i.e. the ones that are not
> basic to the basic f
Err, I meant removing base-items.
On 11/28/05, Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Sanjay Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, I would like to make one request to the project design...users
> > be given easily configured & modular way to remove (i.e. not compile in)
>
On 11/28/05, Sanjay Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I would like to make one request to the project design...users
> be given easily configured & modular way to remove (i.e. not compile in)
> services they do not want on the pfsense box, i.e. the ones that are not
> basic to the basic f
At 07:32 PM 11/28/2005, you wrote:
Will pick up the thread again after evaluating myself.
Hmmm... Psychiatrict problems? :)
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 15:43 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Bill Marquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/28/05, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This part of the architecture has changed slightly from m0n0wall I
> > > believe, so if I go astray here, somebody kick m
On 11/28/05, Bill Marquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This part of the architecture has changed slightly from m0n0wall I
> > believe, so if I go astray here, somebody kick me back into shape. ;)
>
> *kick*
>
> > Basically, you can't get
On 11/28/05, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This part of the architecture has changed slightly from m0n0wall I
> believe, so if I go astray here, somebody kick me back into shape. ;)
*kick*
> Basically, you can't get to PHP without first being authenticated. At
> this point, if you
Chris Buechler wrote:
Sanjay Arora wrote:
Hi all
Just joined the list. Am mostly using IPcop & other Linux flavours for
perimeter firewalling. Needed ISP WAN-link balancing & failover, hence
my search for a new option. Also have started experimenting with
freebsd, so choice was limited to eit
Sanjay Arora wrote:
Hi all
Just joined the list. Am mostly using IPcop & other Linux flavours for
perimeter firewalling. Needed ISP WAN-link balancing & failover, hence
my search for a new option. Also have started experimenting with
freebsd, so choice was limited to either freebsd or linux.
H
Hi all
Just joined the list. Am mostly using IPcop & other Linux flavours for
perimeter firewalling. Needed ISP WAN-link balancing & failover, hence
my search for a new option. Also have started experimenting with
freebsd, so choice was limited to either freebsd or linux.
Have downloaded the iso.
12 matches
Mail list logo
