On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:10:41PM -0400, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
>
> I'm not to interested in exact rules at this point; I can figure those
> out. I'm just looking for what people think is the best way to use the
> tools to do the job: least ports opened, least hassle, least resources,
> etc.
>
--As of Monday, July 18, 2005 7:28 PM +0200, Camiel Dobbelaar is alleged to
have said:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
My setup is fairly simple: I have a NATed home network with several users
and a web host that I serve a couple of websites off of. Ideally, of
course, I'd like ev
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
> My setup is fairly simple: I have a NATed home network with several users
> and a web host that I serve a couple of websites off of. Ideally, of
> course, I'd like everything to Just Work: active and passive, both from
> all the clients and to the se
On 07/18/2005 11:10:41 AM, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
>From a scan of the man pages, ftpsesame looks to be able to handle
just
about everything except active client connections, and ftp-proxy seems
to
be able to handle everything major, but requires a lot of ports open.
What else should I consi
I'm in the middle of updating my firewall and was wondering if I could get
opinions on the relative merits of ftp-proxy and ftpsesame for passing
connections through pf. I've read through the man pages for both, and
they obviously both have advantages, but I'm trying to figure out how they
compar
