Do me a huge favor and click on the following link. When you enter
your email address and confirm your membership to a really cool
gaming site, I'll get $50!
http://www.way2vin.com/default.asp?refId=2640282
Talk to you later,
I apologize for the previous spam mail that slipped through. There's no
need to complain to pathlink.com about it, since that is the Usenet
gateway intentionally set up to gate the list with the newsgroup
bit.listserv.openbsd-pf.
The problem was that the (proper) headers added by the gateway
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 03:17:36PM +0100, Roger Skjetlein wrote:
Maybe bridging is 1000 times simpler?
no, the opposite is closer to reality.
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 02:14:58AM +1000, loki wrote:
rather than having an embryo flag on a rule tho, id make it its own
directive and have it before the normal filter rules, therefore evaluated
before the normal rules. state is checked before rules. since embryo
states are almost states, it
I don't think adding such a mechanism to the rule set improves
performance, quite the opposite. A single pointer comparison (for an
empty tree of embryonic states) is about as cheap as it gets. Look at
Here's that infernal Single pointer comparison again. You mean, if
someone isn't using
Hi all-
I've just completed a new OBSD 3.1 build, and am trying to get some form
of tcp reflection working on this system. I know that the best choice
would be to create a DMZ... this is not a study in best practices, this
is an effort to get this feature _working_. I've attempted to get this
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 01:26:36PM -0500, Jason Dixon wrote:
nat on $int_if proto tcp from $int_net to $server port 80 - $int_if
/etc/nat.conf:22: syntax error
pfctl: syntax error in file: nat rules not loaded
Yes, pf in 3.1 doesn't allow to specify ports in nat rules, that was
added
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:59:31 +0100, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 02:14:58AM +1000, loki wrote:
having such a rule (or rules) has several other advantages, you could
create several trees, one for each proxy that requires it (include a
mechanism for the proxy to talk to its
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 08:01:40PM +0100, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
dc1 does have 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 assigned, right?
Oh, 192.168.1.0 is not a valid address for a host in that network, it's
the broadcast address (all host bits zero). Try 192.168.1.1 instead...
Daniel
dc0 (external)
-J.
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 16:29, Zafer Dastan wrote:
which interface (dc0 or dc1) contains $server (10.109.10.97/32) ip address ?
Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 01:26:36PM -0500, Jason Dixon wrote:
nat on $int_if proto tcp from $int_net to $server
10 matches
Mail list logo
