On 21.02.21, 21:54, "Dnsmasq-discuss on behalf of Simon Kelley"
wrote:
> OK. It's set. Looking for feedback, good and bad.
>
> Simon.
My latest '[PATCH v5] Connection track mark based DNS query filtering.'
email did no longer get filtered into the junk folder, so I think the
settings may be
This extends query filtering support beyond what is currently possible
with the `--ipset` configuration option, by adding support for:
1) Specifying allowlists on a per-client basis, based on their
associated Linux connection track mark.
2) Dynamic configuration of allowlists via Ubus.
3)
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:39:28PM +, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 19/02/2021 12:35, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 18.02.21 22:50, Simon Kelley wrote:
> >> That wiki page is just word-soup as far as I am concerned. Does setting
> >> dmarc_moderation_action to "munge from" fix Etan's
On 19/02/2021 12:35, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 17/02/2021 13:54, Etan Kissling wrote:
> When submitting a patch I noticed that the Dnsmasq mailing list
> modifies
> the subject of the email (prefix [Dnsmasq-discuss]) as well as appends
> 'Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list'
Do you have a IP configuration output from a client l, to verify it has all the
right settings?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 21, 2021, at 01:22, Wolfgang Paul Rauchholz
> wrote:
>
>
> Exactly, the client does not have internet access. So I set the following
> option in the .conf file:
Exactly, the client does not have internet access. So I set the following
option in the .conf file: *dhcp-option = option:router, 10.5.2.1.*
It still doesn’t work. No error message.
The setup of my home server is as follows:
Acts as modem router
enp5sP/ppp0 is WAN NIC
enp3s0 is LAN NIC
Currently
