Re: [Fwd: Re: [leaf-devel] Configuration]

2004-09-26 Thread Mike Noyes
On Sat, 2004-09-25 at 14:15, Chad Carr wrote: > -Forwarded Message- > > From: Chad Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My work on tmpl continues, however it goes _very_ slowly because of my > > inability to commit large chunks of time to it. I have also been > > rethinking my design in this area.

[Fwd: Re: [leaf-devel] Configuration]

2004-09-25 Thread Chad Carr
r has their act together now, it seems. Thanks, Chad -Forwarded Message- > From: Chad Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: leaf-devel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [leaf-devel] Configuration > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:38:32 -0700 > > On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 09:53, M

Re: [leaf-devel] Configuration

2004-09-24 Thread Nathan Angelacos
On Friday 24 September 2004 12:53 pm, Mike Noyes wrote: > What is the status of webconf? The current version in cvs provides a "web" version of lrcfg and the backup script. It works for me, but hasn't been tested much. I've received a number of good suggestions from the uClibc-Bering crew, and

[leaf-devel] Configuration

2004-09-24 Thread Mike Noyes
Chad, What is the status of leaf-tools? Nathan, What is the status of webconf? Everyone, Has anyone looked at how Devil-Linux and/or Sentry Firewall handle configuration? http://www.devil-linux.org/ http://www.sentryfirewall.com/ -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhno

Re: [Leaf-devel] configuration Weblet for shorewall

2001-05-22 Thread Eric Wolzak
Hi Gavin weng > Hi, > Does shorewall provide the web based configuration? > Or what would you sugest for doing that? > Shorewall is a statefull firewall script. Normally it is configured by textscripts. This Weblet sets this scripts up, using a webinterface. It uses a small webserver with "act

[Leaf-devel] configuration Weblet for shorewall

2001-04-25 Thread Eric Wolzak
Hello all I just finished my early beta version of a shellscript based weblet. It is ment to configurate a firewall with shorewall, but this does a lot more as iptables include also portforwarding etc. IMHO The rules are also more logical, as the routing is done before with destination nat o