On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 03:46:20PM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
> I know this doesn't work today, does it make sense to? We can already
> have from/to/port evals in anchor rules, why not allow "tagged" as
> well? :)
Makes sense, consider it done.
Daniel
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 09:09:59AM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> Porkodi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Please help me in per user basis bandwidth sharing.
> > Is there any way in pf with altq?
>
> authpf with per user rules which assign the user's traffic to queues
> should be possib
I know this doesn't work today, does it make sense to? We can already
have from/to/port evals in anchor rules, why not allow "tagged" as
well? :)
pass in proto tcp from any to any port = 22 flags S/SA keep state tag qHighDown
anchor aHighDown tagged qHighDown
BTW, that rule set (which isn't vali
I don't think PF supports UPnP. But you should try to forward 3389/tcp
to you NAT'ed computer (the rdp -port).
Hope this helps you with your problem...
Siju George wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to know if there is any body using Windows XP remote
desktop sharing behind an OpenBSD Firewall.
Wha
On May 21, 2005, at 4:40 PM, j knight wrote:
Abdul Rehman Gani wrote:
pass in on $ext_mail reply-to ($ext_mail $router_addr) proto tcp
from any to $ext_mail port { pop3, smtp, ssh } keep state
All works as expected (and required)
Now I want to use spamd on the mail. But the redirect to s
Hi all,
I would like to know if there is any body using Windows XP remote
desktop sharing behind an OpenBSD Firewall.
What I would like to do is to allow a couple of windows users behind
my OpenBSD firewall to access windows XP remote desktops on the
internet.
From
http://www.microsoft.com/tech
Porkodi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please help me in per user basis bandwidth sharing.
> Is there any way in pf with altq?
authpf with per user rules which assign the user's traffic to queues
should be possible.
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http
