Yep, we've been following it...we've got eyes everywhere ;-P I don't find that blog entry terribly interesting though. It depends on your perspective of "unnecessary services" - a web daemon is pretty necessary for pfSense, that's why you use it, otherwise you'd be editing pf.conf by hand (not that there's anything wrong with that - I prefer to not think when given the chance at home though, at work, different story).
--Bill On 1/2/06, Forrest Aldrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FYI, a discussion threat on the PF mailing list................. and a > pointer to an interesting blog entry. > > > _F > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: PFSense? > Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:11:19 +0100 > From: Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [email protected] > References: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Hi there, > > On Sunday 01 January 2006 23:08, Charles Sprickman wrote: > .. > > > Any comments on this project? I do like the idea of being able to drop a > > fairly sophisticated "appliance" at a client site that uses pf... > > http://www.weisserth.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=82 > > The problem is having unnecessary services exposed on a firewall machine (in > order to have the web interface). > > pf is easy enough to configure "manually" in contrast to iptables. > > This is of course just my opinion. > > kind regards, > Tobias W. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
