I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
finish, but scrub isn't going to be remove all together from pf is it?
I am not
ropers wrote:
Daniel,
That was a bit of a dick move.
Happy for you that you have a bigger dick then me then. (;
I saw the various cvs changes commit and did read the different one on
misc@ as well. I asked the question because it wasn't clear to me. May
be I tumble on words meaning or may
Alright, alright. I vented, you vented. Fair enough.
No hard feelings.
regards,
--ropers
2009/4/9 Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net:
ropers wrote:
Daniel,
That was a bit of a dick move.
Happy for you that you have a bigger dick then me then. (;
I saw the various cvs changes commit and
On 2009-04-07, Dirk Mast condo...@gmail.com wrote:
Dan Carley wrote:
Technically it won't be relayd that is the cause of your woes because it
is PF will be performing the grunt work of the TCP redirection.
Based on what Brian said, you may find that playing with 'scrub out' and
'max-mss'
On 2009-04-07, Dirk Mast condo...@gmail.com wrote:
Dan Carley wrote:
Technically it won't be relayd that is the cause of your woes because
it
is PF will be performing the grunt work of the TCP redirection.
Based on what Brian said, you may find that playing with 'scrub out'
and
'max-mss'
* Joe Gidi j...@entropicblur.com [2009-04-08 15:21]:
On 2009-04-07, Dirk Mast condo...@gmail.com wrote:
Dan Carley wrote:
Technically it won't be relayd that is the cause of your woes because
it
is PF will be performing the grunt work of the TCP redirection.
Based on what Brian
Which will soon be no longer.
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
finish, but scrub isn't going to be remove all
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:06:37PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Which will soon be no longer.
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:06:37 -0400
Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net wrote:
Which will soon be no longer.
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of
changes from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf
in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
finish, but scrub isn't going to be remove all together from pf is it?
I am not
* Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net [2009-04-08 21:12]:
Which will soon be no longer.
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
finish, but scrub isn't going to be remove all together from
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net [2009-04-08 21:12]:
Which will soon be no longer.
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and
2009/4/5 Brian McCann bjmcc...@gmail.com
I've seen similar problems...not with relayd, but it still may apply. I
had
a server that was behind a Linksys router on a DSL connection, being
accessed by a remote user . The window size (iirc) at the remote user was
lower then usual, and the DSL
Dan Carley wrote:
Technically it won't be relayd that is the cause of your woes because it
is PF will be performing the grunt work of the TCP redirection.
Based on what Brian said, you may find that playing with 'scrub out' and
'max-mss' in your PF rules alleviates the issue.
Which will
I've seen similar problems...not with relayd, but it still may apply. I had
a server that was behind a Linksys router on a DSL connection, being
accessed by a remote user . The window size (iirc) at the remote user was
lower then usual, and the DSL provider was blocking the ICMP messages to
My company has a web application running on a set of web servers
that we're load balancing with relayd.
We've recently learned of a problem where end users who have:
- Comcast cable internet connections,
- Linksys cable routers provided by Comcast, and
- the Linksys router's firewall protection
17 matches
Mail list logo
