Zdravstvujte, matt.
Vy pisali 4 yanvarya 2009 g., 22:23:16:
>
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Eugene Grosbein <[1]eu...@kuzbass.ru>
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 04:05:00PM +0200, KES wrote:
> There will be very usefull to have options for tcpdum
"Daniel O'Connor" writes:
> I think it's more a question for the tcpdump maintainers.
tcpdump does not parse the filter expression, it just passes it along to
libpcap.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
freebsd-hack
On Monday 05 January 2009 02:26:38 Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 04:05:00PM +0200, KES wrote:
> > There will be very usefull to have options for tcpdump to monitor
> > incomint or outgoing traffic regardless of src/dst IPs or ports or
> > protoco
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 04:05:00PM +0200, KES wrote:
>
> > There will be very usefull to have options for tcpdump to monitor
> > incomint or outgoing traffic regardless of src/dst IPs or ports or
> protoco
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 04:05:00PM +0200, KES wrote:
> There will be very usefull to have options for tcpdump to monitor
> incomint or outgoing traffic regardless of src/dst IPs or ports or protocol
>
> For example:
>
> kes# tcpdump -n -i rl4 out
> EXPECTED: show tr
Здравствуйте, Questions.
There will be very usefull to have options for tcpdump to monitor
incomint or outgoing traffic regardless of src/dst IPs or ports or protocol
For example:
kes# tcpdump -n -i rl4 out
EXPECTED: show traffic outgoing on rl4
ACTUAL: tcpdump: syntax error
kes# tcpdump -n
Bartosz Giza wrote:
Hi,
We are using a lot of i386 computers as routers for out network. All of those
routers are using FreeBSD from 4.x to 7.x (exept 5.x)
We are having problem with kernel panic on routers based on 6.x and 7.x while
using tcpdump or trafshow. It is not that always we got
Hi,
We are using a lot of i386 computers as routers for out network. All of those
routers are using FreeBSD from 4.x to 7.x (exept 5.x)
We are having problem with kernel panic on routers based on 6.x and 7.x while
using tcpdump or trafshow. It is not that always we got kernel panics. We got
http://hlug.fscker.com has found that the tcpdump from tcpdump.org has been
infected by a trojan horse. I just checked the version of tcpdump built by
RELENG_4. i.e. freebsd 4.7-stable. I am happy to report that it is NOT
infected as described by fscker.com. However, if you have built tcpdump
* Anjali Kulkarni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09 04:25] wrote:
>
> Right! I am on a switch on a small n/w connected to another switch
> which has a larger n/w connected to it. Will using the hub decrease
> my response time for fetching web pages? (They are not large pages)
A hub will cause slowdo
ROTECTED]>
To: "Anjali Kulkarni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: tcpdump
> * Anjali Kulkarni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09 03:36] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to make tcpdump work a
I forgot to mention, the line
pseudo-device bpf 4 is there in the
kernel config file
Anjali
* Anjali Kulkarni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09 03:36] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to make tcpdump work across 2 machines, ie trying to
> monitor a machine's IP packets from another machine. Just typing
> 'tcpdump host ip2' from the first m/c, say ip1, is not
Hi,
I am trying to make tcpdump work across 2 machines,
ie trying to monitor a machine's IP packets from another machine. Just typing
'tcpdump host ip2' from the first m/c, say ip1, is not working. However, typing
'tcpdump host ip2' on ip2 works fine. Do I hav
ssh > yyy.yyy.yyy.863: . ack 369 win 17200
> > (DF) [tos 0x10]
> oke dokie baby wants to read ssh packet
> mama says
> hey you can do that with tcpdump but dug song wrote an app
OOPS YOU CAN NOT DO WITH TCPDUMP
Sorry about that
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
ead ssh packet
mama says
hey you can do that with tcpdump but dug song wrote an app
with which you can see the length of
a ssh packet
but in the new version of openssh the packet length is balanced with attaching
random packets seeing that version 1 was venurable to anyone analysing
ur trafic Dug
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 04:37:40PM +0300, Vladimir Terziev wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> I appologize for the next question if it is stuppied.
>
> How can print the IP packet length, matched by tcpdump expression?
>
> I read the tcpdump man page, but I couldn't f
Hi hackers,
I appologize for the next question if it is stuppied.
How can print the IP packet length, matched by tcpdump expression?
I read the tcpdump man page, but I couldn't find the answer of my question!
regards,
Vladimir
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi.
-Messaggio Originale-
Da: Michael T. Stolarchuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A: Loris Degioanni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Data invio: giovedì 14 dicembre 2000 16.39
Oggetto: Re: R: [tcpdump-workers] Re: R: [Ethereal-dev] Re: Fwd:
kyxtech: freebsd outsniffed by wintendo !!?!?
>
>
In message <009801c065c0$a2bd1200$016464c8@lorix>, "Loris Degioanni" writes:
>
>-Messaggio Originale-
>Da: Michael T. Stolarchuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>A: Fulvio Risso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>freebsd outsniffed by wintendo !!?!?
WRT: http://netgroup-serv.polito.it/winpcap/docs/performance.htm
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Data invio: martedì 12 dicembre 2000 17.22
Oggetto: [tcpdump-workers] Re: R: [Ethereal-dev] Re: Fwd: kyxtech:
freebsd outsniffed by wintendo !!?!?
>
>
> typical buffer sizes for bpf these days are still 32K,
> One could then say that
On 2000-12-11 10:49 +0100, Loris Degioanni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > # sysctl -w debug.bpf_bufsize=32768 debug.bpf_maxbufsize=4194304
> >
> > makes the default buffer size 32K and limits the size to 4MB, for
> > example.
>
> Notice however that in pcap-bpf.c, pcap_open_live() forces the buf
> On 2000-12-08 00:38 -0800, Guy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Both FreeBSD and OpenBSD have the maximum buffer size for BPF as
512KB
> > in the top of the CVS tree; NetBSD still has it as 32K.)
>
> You can change both the default and maximum BPF buffer sizes at
> run time (affecting an s
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 09:51:42PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> I'm very curious how they managed to run "windump" on FreeBSD.
Presumably they're referring to tcpdump there, as per the first
paragraph in "2. Tests":
This Section aims at
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 09:06:04PM -0800, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> (Hurm Wintendo outperforming unix???!?? Something's
> improper about this, and it ought to be fixed... :-)
> Comments? Other OS numbers: more recent
> FreeBSD versions? Solaris? Tru64? Optimization
> patches?
As an experi
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Konrad Heuer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:56:21PM +0100, Konrad Heuer wrote:
> >
> > > After patching and installing, tcpdump can't be used anymore since it puts
> > >
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:56:21PM +0100, Konrad Heuer wrote:
>
> > After patching and installing, tcpdump can't be used anymore since it puts
> > very heavy load onto the network via xl0 and AppleTalk broadcast messages
>
On Tue, 07 Nov 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:56:21PM +0100, Konrad Heuer wrote:
>
> > After patching and installing, tcpdump can't be used anymore since it puts
> > very heavy load onto the network via xl0 and AppleTalk broadcast messages
&g
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:56:21PM +0100, Konrad Heuer wrote:
> After patching and installing, tcpdump can't be used anymore since it puts
> very heavy load onto the network via xl0 and AppleTalk broadcast messages
> (one message each 0.2 ms). Sorry, in the moment I don'
This morning I applied the tcpdump v1.1 patch for 4.x-R on a 4.1-R system
with following configuration:
ti0 Gigabit-LinkIPv4 interface
xl0 Fast Ethernet AppleTalk interface
options NETATALK is included in the kernel config since the host uses the
netatalk package exports the home
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> tcpdump -p does *not* show outgoing traffic in 4.0-STABLE. Incoming is
> fine. Is this intended?
Actually I think I've seen the same thing in 5.0 on a PPP (tun) interface.
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509
tcpdump -p (interface in non-promiscuous mode) shows incoming and outgoing
traffic in 3.4-STABLE (as expected).
tcpdump -p does *not* show outgoing traffic in 4.0-STABLE. Incoming is
fine. Is this intended?
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
Hi,
i've put a new PPP decode/print routine print-ppp.c for tcpdump into my home
dir on freefall. It would be good if someone could verify/review it.
hellmuth
--
Hellmuth Michaelish...@kts.org Hamburg, Europe
We all live in a yellow subroutine, y
Hi,
i've put a new PPP decode/print routine print-ppp.c for tcpdump into my home
dir on freefall. It would be good if someone could verify/review it.
hellmuth
--
Hellmuth Michaelis[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hamburg, Europe
We all live in a yellow subroutine, y
On 29 Jun, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
>
> Comments?
If you do th
On 29 Jun, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
>
> Comments?
If you do th
Boris Popov wrote:
>
> Hope it will be possible. The samba team is very restrictive about
> BSD-style license. As result I can say that smbfs for FreeBSD doesn't
> contain any GPLd code from Linux's smbfs.
>
> BTW, does anybody have objections about name of this file system
> in
Boris Popov wrote:
>
> Hope it will be possible. The samba team is very restrictive about
> BSD-style license. As result I can say that smbfs for FreeBSD doesn't
> contain any GPLd code from Linux's smbfs.
>
> BTW, does anybody have objections about name of this file system
> in F
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes:
: I would say it is not _acceptable_. The code shouldn't go into our
: source tree until the known buffer overflow problems have been fixed.
: It's just stupid to add buffer overflow problems to a program that is
: always run as root.
With my s
In message <199906301826.laa07...@vashon.polstra.com> John Polstra writes:
: I would say it is not _acceptable_. The code shouldn't go into our
: source tree until the known buffer overflow problems have been fixed.
: It's just stupid to add buffer overflow problems to a program that is
: always r
On 30 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Bill Fumerola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> > patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> > to the tcpdump m
> I would say it is not _acceptable_. The code shouldn't go into our
> source tree until the known buffer overflow problems have been fixed.
> It's just stupid to add buffer overflow problems to a program that is
> always run as root.
Minor correction: tcpdump will run
On 30 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Bill Fumerola writes:
> > Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> > patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> > to the tcpdump mailing list and b...
Bill Fumerola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
Will they be
Bill Fumerola writes:
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
Will they be included in a future offic
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthew Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the point is that when root is running tcpdump on host A, a bad
> guy on host B can create a packet which makes tcpdump on A execute his
> code (as root, since that's who's r
> I would say it is not _acceptable_. The code shouldn't go into our
> source tree until the known buffer overflow problems have been fixed.
> It's just stupid to add buffer overflow problems to a program that is
> always run as root.
Minor correction: tcpdump will run
In article <19990630092358.a51...@wopr.caltech.edu>,
Matthew Hunt wrote:
>
> I think the point is that when root is running tcpdump on host A, a bad
> guy on host B can create a packet which makes tcpdump on A execute his
> code (as root, since that's who's running
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 05:53:41AM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > I should warn you though that there are some security issues with my
> > tcpdump-smb patches. It is possible for a malicious user to put
> > packets on the wire that will cause a buffer o
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 05:53:41AM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > I should warn you though that there are some security issues with my
> > tcpdump-smb patches. It is possible for a malicious user to put
> > packets on the wire that will cause a buffer o
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Fumerola [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:54 AM
> To: David O'Brien
> Cc: Bill Fumerola; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: tcpdump(1) additions.
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, David O'Bri
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Fumerola [SMTP:bi...@chc-chimes.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:54 AM
> To: David O'Brien
> Cc: Bill Fumerola; hack...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: tcpdump(1) additions.
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, David O'
o this for quite some time. HOWEVER, please
> reference this PGP signed email (I'll send you the full copy) in the
> commit message:
Excellent.
> Note that the Tcpdump patches from www.samba.org are under the GPL.
> Andrew Tridgell also warned:
>
> I should warn you thoug
o this for quite some time. HOWEVER, please
> reference this PGP signed email (I'll send you the full copy) in the
> commit message:
Excellent.
> Note that the Tcpdump patches from www.samba.org are under the GPL.
> Andrew Tridgell also warned:
>
> I should warn you thoug
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
I would bet there are a million other programs on rootshell or other such
sites that do just that.
If someone has
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
I would bet there are a million other programs on rootshell or other such
sites that do just that.
If someone has c
ediency. If you're
running a tcpdump which includes telnet traffic and someone logs in, their
password goes floating past in front of your eyes (and anyone else who is
watching). Most of us can't read hex-encoded ascii strings, so the passswords
aren't apparent to the (witting or unwitt
If you're
running a tcpdump which includes telnet traffic and someone logs in, their
password goes floating past in front of your eyes (and anyone else who is
watching). Most of us can't read hex-encoded ascii strings, so the passswords
aren't apparent to the (witting or unwitting) c
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
There are plenty of patches to do this available, and plenty of other
packet sniffers that do this. AFAIK even the attitude of the tcpdump
maintain
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
There are plenty of patches to do this available, and plenty of other
packet sniffers that do this. AFAIK even the attitude of the tcpdump
maintain
l (I'll send you the full copy) in the
commit message:
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Andrew Tridgell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: tcpdump patches copyright
References: <[EMAIL
'll send you the full copy) in the
commit message:
Sender: tri...@samba.anu.edu.au
From: Andrew Tridgell
To: obr...@nuxi.com
In-reply-to: <19990106131559.a18...@dragon.nuxi.com> (obr...@nuxi.com)
Subject: Re: tcpdump patches copyright
References: <1999010
swords from tcp streams.)
And if it isn't a port yet I'm sure someone will come out of the woodwork
and make it one.
Regardless, -x solves 90% of the issues that cause me to have to use
tcpdump | tcpshow right now.
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Bob Bishop wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
swords from tcp streams.)
And if it isn't a port yet I'm sure someone will come out of the woodwork
and make it one.
Regardless, -x solves 90% of the issues that cause me to have to use
tcpdump | tcpshow right now.
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Bob Bishop wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:22:08AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
Ok, so how about making it a compile time option, turned off by default?
That way, you have to
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
And thus was born tcpshow.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
And thus was born tcpshow.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:22:08AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
> complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
Ok, so how about making it a compile time option, turned off by default?
That way, you have to r
It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 1:38 pm +1000 30/6/99, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >[...]
> >Whilst we're at it, how about extending `-x' to print
It would make sense except that the last time someone tried, some people
complained that it made it too easy to sniff passwords etc.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 1:38 pm +1000 30/6/99, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >[...]
> >Whilst we're at it, how about extending `-x' to print o
Hi,
At 1:38 pm +1000 30/6/99, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>[...]
>Whilst we're at it, how about extending `-x' to print out the packet
>in ASCII and hex (ala hd(1)). I know the code includes the statement
>
> * (BTW, please don't send us patches to print the packet out in ascii)
>
>but I find this featu
Hi,
At 1:38 pm +1000 30/6/99, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>[...]
>Whilst we're at it, how about extending `-x' to print out the packet
>in ASCII and hex (ala hd(1)). I know the code includes the statement
>
> * (BTW, please don't send us patches to print the packet out in ascii)
>
>but I find this featur
Bill Fumerola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
>patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
>to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
I also think it
Bill Fumerola wrote:
>Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
>patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
>to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
I also think it's a good idea. Judging fro
yes!
they've been submitted to the tcpdump folks many times.
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
>
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec
yes!
they've been submitted to the tcpdump folks many times.
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
>
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike pa
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
I'm also will be happy to see NCP protocol dumps, but probably, it
isn't a high priority task.
> > Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> > www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there for FreeBSD
> > (exc
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
I'm also will be happy to see NCP protocol dumps, but probably, it
isn't a high priority task.
> > Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> > www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there for FreeBSD
> > (exce
; > and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> > to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
> >
> > Comments?
>
> The IPSEC/IKE stuff for tcpdump seems like a great thing to have!
Agreed. They have the BSD license as well.
- bill fumerola - [E
; > and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> > to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
> >
> > Comments?
>
> The IPSEC/IKE stuff for tcpdump seems like a great thing to have!
Agreed. They have the BSD license as well.
- bill fumerola - bi..
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Pierre Beyssac wrote:
> Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there for FreeBSD
> (except for samba itself).
It makes tcpdump understand SMB packets (header structure, e
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Pierre Beyssac wrote:
> Could you elaborate some more about the SMB patches? I've been to
> www.samba.org but it's not obvious to me what's in there for FreeBSD
> (except for samba itself).
It makes tcpdump understand SMB packets (header structure, e
to me what's in there for FreeBSD
(except for samba itself).
> and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
>
> Comments?
The IPSEC/IKE stuff for tcpdump seems like a great thing to have!
--
Pierre Beyssac[EM
to me what's in there for FreeBSD
(except for samba itself).
> and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
>
> Comments?
The IPSEC/IKE stuff for tcpdump seems like a great thing to have!
--
Pierre Be
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
>
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and [
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
>
> Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
> patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
> to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@fre
[bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
to the tcpdump mailing list and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tcpdump(1).
Comments?
- bill fumerola - [EMAIL PROT
[bcc to committers, replys to hackers]
Unless there is strong feelings against it, I'd like to commit the smb
patches (as seen on www.samba.org) and ipsec/ike patches (recently mailed
to the tcpdump mailing list and b...@freebsd.org) to tcpdump(1).
Comments?
- bill fumerola - bi..
88 matches
Mail list logo
