RE: Pf rules for Review

Daniel..and others.. Thanks for the helpful suggestions.. I did make use of macros as suggested .. looks like I need a better understanding of ICMP.. Much Thanks Charles -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-pf@;benzedrine.cx] On Behalf Of Daniel Hartmeier Sent: Friday

RE: Pf rules for Review

Daniel..and others.. Thanks for the helpful suggestions.. I did make use of macros as suggested .. looks like I need a better understanding of ICMP.. Much Thanks Charles -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-pf@;benzedrine.cx] On Behalf Of Daniel Hartmeier Sent: Friday

OT: Signature

Hello Sacha, Friday, October 18, 2002, 2:03:16 PM, you wrote: SL> -- SL> " Bebe mi semen, bebelo hasta el fin " SL> Hocico - Sucios Pensamientos Being a native Spanish speaker I found your signature quite amusing. I'm asuming you know what it means, right? I find quite a

Re: Book.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:14:25AM -0400, Michael Lucas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:56:30PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:43:56AM -0400, Michael Lucas wrote: > > > So, Dan, are you planning to rework the whole pf tool suite for 3.3, > > > as you did between 3.1

Re: Book.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:56:30PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:43:56AM -0400, Michael Lucas wrote: > > So, Dan, are you planning to rework the whole pf tool suite for 3.3, > > as you did between 3.1 and 3.2? That'll tell me how many pages I can > > spend on it... if t

Re: Pf rules for Review

Hi Charles and list, My only real issue with your ruleset is that it is quite hard to read as I feel there are too many comments and separator lines. (It's difficult to determine how secure the rules are if your intended security policy is unclear.) You could probably chop dozens of lines from you

Re: Book.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:56:30PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > There's a big thing coming I'm currently coding on, though that's an > extension. I think we will add quite a few extensions, but the existing > stuff should be fairly stable - but you never know for sure. perhaps we have > THE idea

Re: Book.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:43:56AM -0400, Michael Lucas wrote: > So, Dan, are you planning to rework the whole pf tool suite for 3.3, > as you did between 3.1 and 3.2? That'll tell me how many pages I can > spend on it... if the user-visible interface is still flopping around, > I have to trim the

Re: Book.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:38:56AM +0200, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 05:34:19PM -0500, Juan Antonio Torres Zúñiga wrote: > > > This mail it's for Daniel, Do you think write a book about PF? > > A whole book is a lot of work :) There's probably not a large enough > market f

Re: Book.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:03:16AM -0700, Sacha Ligthert wrote: > PS: Daniel, will you be at BSDconEurope? Yes, I just registered. Today's the last day of early registration, so anyone still undecided, make up your minds. And I'm looking forward to meeting you there :) http://2002.eurobsdcon.o

Re: Pf rules for Review

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:36:16PM -0500, C.Tran wrote: > I think I have a good rule set but would like others to offer > any comments or suggestions whether more restrictions > are needed.. You're filtering on only the external interface, using a default block policy and keeping state. That's wh

Re: Book.

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > A whole book is a lot of work :) There's probably not a large enough > market for a traditionally published book (there aren't many paper books > about OpenBSD in general, even) and for a non-commercial publication, > time is the limit, as I can't affo

Re: Book.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 05:34:19PM -0500, Juan Antonio Torres Zúñiga wrote: > This mail it's for Daniel, Do you think write a book about PF? A whole book is a lot of work :) There's probably not a large enough market for a traditionally published book (there aren't many paper books about OpenBSD