Am 06.03.2008 um 23:30 schrieb Chris Buechler:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentlemen!
I sorry to have started this Return Receipt storm.
Chris Buechler complained to me in private and asked me to turn
off RR when writing to this forum which I will of course do my
outmost to remember in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentlemen!
I sorry to have started this Return Receipt storm.
Chris Buechler complained to me in private and asked me to turn off RR
when writing to this forum which I will of course do my outmost to
remember in the future.
I half expected a "read receipt" pop up
Gentlemen!
I sorry to have started this Return Receipt storm.
Chris Buechler complained to me in private and asked me to turn off RR
when writing to this forum which I will of course do my outmost to
remember in the future.
Problem is that I prefer having RR on as default when doing normal mail
> The real problem is that the %^$%^#$& mail program I am using does not allow
> you to turn of return receipts.
Corporate standards for the win! I feel for you, as your situation is
very similar to what initially drove me to use my own address versus a
corporate one.
> Anyhow, it's fixed now.
The real problem is that the %^$%^#$& mail program I am using does not
allow you to turn of return receipts.
Anyhow, it's fixed now.You can go on complaining about something
else...
Ryan Neily
|>
| From: |
|>
>
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 02:53:19PM +, Paul M wrote:
>> RB wrote:
>>> Bwa ha ha! Delicious, delicious irony! I knew it was inevitable
>>> since Ryan had to read the thread at least once more before fixing
>>> things, but it was worth it to see this one come in.
>> has he f
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 02:53:19PM +, Paul M wrote:
> RB wrote:
> > Bwa ha ha! Delicious, delicious irony! I knew it was inevitable
> > since Ryan had to read the thread at least once more before fixing
> > things, but it was worth it to see this one come in.
>
> has he fixed things?
Just f
Sorry guys. I have unsubscribed. Hopefully this will fix things..
Ryan Neily
|>
| From: |
|>
>--|
|Eugen Leitl <[E
Return Receipt
Your Re: [pfSense-discussion] pfSense / Time Service
document:
RB wrote:
> Bwa ha ha! Delicious, delicious irony! I knew it was inevitable
> since Ryan had to read the thread at least once more before fixing
> things, but it was worth it to see this one come in.
has he fixed things?
>
> On 3/6/08, Ryan Neily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Return Receipt
>>
Bwa ha ha! Delicious, delicious irony! I knew it was inevitable
since Ryan had to read the thread at least once more before fixing
things, but it was worth it to see this one come in.
On 3/6/08, Ryan Neily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Return Receipt
>
> Your document: RE: [pfSense-discussion]
Return Receipt
Your RE: [pfSense-discussion] pfSense / Time Service
document:
> The correct course of action is to boot him off on first offense.
This makes seven on my count
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 01:32:11PM +, Paul M wrote:
> I too have asked him privately. I suspect he's using Lotus Notes or
> something equally horrible which cannot be configured sanely!
That's what God invented webmail for.
> Can the list admin get the mail system changed to strip the reci
> is that system good or not , any idea ?
That should work, depending on your requirements, but do note that
this only provides for failover on the circuits; should either of your
pfSense systems fail, the entire network will go offline.
Not having done multi-wan, I don't know how pfSense does ha
RB wrote:
> No, really - I asked you once in private, now I ask you again in
I too have asked him privately. I suspect he's using Lotus Notes or
something equally horrible which cannot be configured sanely!
Can the list admin get the mail system changed to strip the recipient
request headers out?
No, really - I asked you once in private, now I ask you again in
public: please turn off your foolish Outlook receipts. It is
ridiculous that we have to wade through your mail client's automated
spew that just tells us you received/read a given message. Most of us
really don't care (or actively di
Thanks =)
it's a question levanted by staff here =)
2008/3/6, Paul M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Jose Augusto wrote:
> > Hi,
> > How pfsense work, begin with all ports closed? And then i open the
> > necessary ports?
>
>
> by default closed.
>
> however, whatever rule set you choose to implement
Jose Augusto wrote:
> Hi,
> How pfsense work, begin with all ports closed? And then i open the
> necessary ports?
by default closed.
however, whatever rule set you choose to implement it, you should
a/ understand how to test it
b/ test it regularly
any security product, no matter how good, whic
Hi,
How pfsense work, begin with all ports closed? And then i open the
necessary ports?
Thanks
--
--
"Segurança da Informação se faz com tecnologia, processos e pessoas, e a
formação destas exige mais que uma seqüência de treinamentos. Porque você
treina macacos. Pes
How PfSense work with TCP Flags?
It's possible?
Thanks
--
--
"Segurança da Informação se faz com tecnologia, processos e pessoas, e a
formação destas exige mais que uma seqüência de treinamentos. Porque você
treina macacos. Pessoas,você educa."
FreeBSD: The Freedom t
hello all
i have 1 lan and2 wan , because the traffic shaping is not work in
multiple wans in 1.2 released , i want to configure this system
i setup 1 pfsense for load balancing and fail over
and second pfsense for traffic shaping and squid cashe.
is that system good or not , a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are! But only the default 0.pfsense.pool.ntp.org server is
specified.
What I see is that my pfSense talks to a number of different time
servers and many of those looks like ordinary ADSL subscribers which
scares me a little.
That's the whole point
http://www.p
23 matches
Mail list logo
