On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 06:27:24PM +0100, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 04:20:26PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2021/02/07 17:04, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > a year ago I added support for our pf tables to the unbound ipset module.
> > >
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 04:20:26PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2021/02/07 17:04, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
Hi,
a year ago I added support for our pf tables to the unbound ipset module.
Upstream does not seem eager to merge it:
https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/pull/144
What sthen said, and I also have zero interest in maintaining what
comes down to a fork of unbound.
(Bit besides the point, I don't think the diff applies.)
--
I'm not entirely sure you are real.
On 2021/02/07 17:04, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a year ago I added support for our pf tables to the unbound ipset module.
> Upstream does not seem eager to merge it:
> https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/pull/144
>
> Implementing pf tables support was pretty straightforward. It has
Hi,
a year ago I added support for our pf tables to the unbound ipset
module. Upstream does not seem eager to merge it:
https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/pull/144
Implementing pf tables support was pretty straightforward. It has been
more work to adjust module's privilege management to
