On Behalf Of RW
I don't normally do this as Watson is usually less impressed when
Holmes reveals his working, but the clues were there. He wrote:
install software with ports (i.e, the
/usr/ports collection.)
and
FTP to grab source files from mirrors
If you combine that
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:45:04PM -0400, John Almberg wrote:
I just set up a new server with a very restricted PF configuration. One
problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e, the /
usr/ports collection.) I have to disable PF to do so. Obviously not a
great solution.
Am
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:51:16 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:45:04PM -0400, John Almberg wrote:
I just set up a new server with a very restricted PF configuration.
One problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e,
the / usr/ports
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:54:32PM +0100, RW wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:51:16 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:45:04PM -0400, John Almberg wrote:
I just set up a new server with a very restricted PF configuration.
One problem: I can no longer
problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e, the /usr/ports
collection.) I have to disable PF to do so. Obviously not a great solution.
Am I correct in guessing that ports uses FTP to grab source files from
FTP or HTTP.
if you have http proxy like squid in your network do
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:41:40 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:54:32PM +0100, RW wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:51:16 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
passive ftp has been the default for long time, fetch is called
with the -p option.
sh/bash: export FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=true
csh: setenv FTP_PASSIVE_MODE true
First off, this did solve the problem. Thank you, Jeremy.
Now, as to the why...
That's odd, because if you are running 7.x with a default settings,
FTP_PASSIVE_MODE should be irrelevant to fetching distfiles - even
--On June 26, 2005 12:40:14 AM +0100 Alex Zbyslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support
* Paul Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-24 12:58:51 -0500]:
I've been using pf for a few years now, and I've never had problems
understanding the syntax or how it works (but I also never do NAT, so
that might be the reason it seems easy to me.)
Yes, pf is great, but doing NAT with pf is also
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
pf on freebsd does support the quick keyword. The default
firewall, ipfw, does not.
This makes no sense to me. The two firewalls work very differently.
[...]
You
On 2005-06-26 22:15, Alex Zbyslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pf on freebsd does support the quick keyword. The default
firewall, ipfw, does not.
This makes no sense to me. The two firewalls work very
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Khanh Cao
Van
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:33 AM
To: freebsd-questions
Subject: firewall on freebsd
I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In the handbook list
some of them and I could not
...snip...
|
| Personally, I like the quick keyword of the OpenBSD firewall, (but not
enough to bother
| installing it.)
|
| Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick'
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 08:42:24AM +0200, mess-mate wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
I don't know if they're
mess-mate wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
It's a port, pf on FBSD 5.4 is the same as pf on OBSD 3.6, AFAIK. So if
On Saturday 25 June 2005 05:19 am, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
mess-mate wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
It's a port,
Andrew L. Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Saturday 25 June 2005 05:19 am, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
| mess-mate wrote:
| I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
| with freebsd 5.4
| Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
| Thought PF on
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
pf on freebsd does
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
pf on freebsd does support the quick keyword. The default
firewall, ipfw, does not.
This makes no sense to me. The two firewalls work very differently.
In pf, each rule is always processed on every packet and
Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning about
firewalling. PF is a little more automated and the rules are very
close to IPF's.
IPFW is for the advanced
On June 24, 2005 09:33 am, Khanh Cao Van wrote:
I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In the handbook list
some of them and I could not find out what is the best . So I decided
to post here hoping to gain some of your opinion and experience .
I would like to know what firewall was
On Friday 24 June 2005 10:59 am, Ean Kingston wrote:
IPF was written for OpenBSD and later ported to FreeBSD. IPF came into
existence because of disagreements between certain members of the OpenBSD
team and the author of IPFilter. Filtering is done in the kernel and I
believe NAT is also
I have been using ipfw for quite some time and I love it. The only
issues I have with it are on the NAT side. Without a tool to modify the
current nat rules, I can not change them dynamically without editing my
config file then doing something like...
killall -9 natd ; sleep 2 ; /sbin/natd -f
On 2005-06-24 10:31, fbsd_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning about
firewalling. PF is a little more automated
On 2005-06-24 10:59, Ean Kingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For anyone who wants to start the in-kernel vs user-land NAT argument,
I've already been through it and there are valid arguments for both
sides. So, I won't get into it again.
Agreed. Most of the people who use FreeBSD in SOHO
--On June 24, 2005 5:31:13 PM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 24 June 2005 15:31, fbsd_user wrote:
Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning
27 matches
Mail list logo
