On 2013-06-22 20:51, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
> Hi Chris (and list),
>
> On 06/22/2013 04:44 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
>> pf is actively developed and maintained on FreeBSD, and widely used.
>> The PRs that are open are largely ages old, no longer relevant and
>> need to be cleaned up, or were bun
On 2011-08-21 09:48, h bagade wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to use pf nat rules with pool support on FreeBsd 8.0, working
> together with ipfw as the main firewall. According to the natting concepts i
> faced in manuals and docs, nat concept is to map the source address to the
> natted address
On 2011-06-28 13:58, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb"
>> Date: June 28, 2011 11:57:25 AM GMT+00:00
>> To: src-committ...@freebsd.org, svn-src-...@freebsd.org,
>> svn-src-h...@freebsd.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r223637 - in head: . contrib/pf/authpf
>
On 2011-03-02 21:51, Richard Brendörfer wrote:
> Hi,
> this is the first time when I write on mailing list.
> If this subject was discussed in the past please don't shoot me, just trow
> me a bone.
>
> I was wonder if pf can detect packets that match a signature/fingerprint of
> a virus, like it m
Any change to get this trivial fixes into
FreeBSD_7_4/8_2 or become any feedback?
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=140369
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=143504
--
Regards,
olli
___
freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.f
The following reply was made to PR bin/143504; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: olli hauer
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: bin/143504: [patch] outgoing states are not killed by authpf(8)
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:29:16 +0100
Any change to get this
On 2010-07-04 20:07, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
> true that, but 6.4 still didn't reach EOL
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Remko Lodder wrote:
>
>>
>> It's included in 8 by default, and perhaps even 7.
>>
>> 'man ftp-proxy' does miracles, perhaps you do not even need to build it :)
>>
So it's best
On 2010-07-04 19:57, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
> And it's broken now too :(
>
> ===> ftp-proxy-4.4p1_1 depends on shared library: event-1.4 - found
> ===> Configuring for ftp-proxy-4.4p1_1
> ===> Building for ftp-proxy-4.4p1_1
> Warning: Object directory not changed from original
> /usr/ports/ftp/
If I remember correctly the there was first pftpx and a (unusable) buid-in
ftp-proxy.
Then ftpseesame was build as successor of pftpx and this went into the system.
Now the build-in ftp-proxy was extend to for ipv6 ...
pftpx/ftpsesame site:
http://www.sentia.org/projects/ftpsesame/
lasted version
On 2010-07-04 18:42, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> pftpx port was removed in FreeBSD. How does one configure pf firewall to work
> with ftp protocol nowadays?
>
> Thank you,
use ftp-proxy instead, it is included in the OS.
___
freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Originator: olli hauer
>Organization:
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: [patch] outgoing states are not killed by authpf
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Category: kern
>Class: sw-bug
>Release:
ttle modification of the script/rules It will work for you
#!/bin/sh
######
# $Source: RCS/pftable_to_file.sh,v $
# OS: OpenBSD
#
# olli hauer
#
##
# sample rule for pf
# --
Sife Mailling wrote:
Salamo Alikom
i setup a firewall for personnel home computer ,now i want every packets block
if it is not pass to specified ports .
this my pf.conf :
net_card="sis0"
tcp_ports="{80 ,https ,domain ,auth ,21}"
udp_ports="{domain}"
table file "/etc/pf/banned"
table {www.googl
Victor Lyapunov wrote:
Thanks for your answer, olli.
As i send mail not from my freebsd server, but rather from the clients
on the local network, so here's what i did:
my pf.conf:
set loginterface pflog0
set block-policy drop
set skip on lo0
block drop log on em0 all
pass log inet proto tcp fro
Victor Lyapunov wrote:
Hi all,
I have production network with FreeBSD box acting as firewall. The
problem emerge as soon as users send mail with attachments. (Sending
mail without attachments always succeeds). Basically, when a user
tries to send a message, only part of it transmitted before con
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if there is any patch which alow me to delete only anchor rules
> for
> authpf.
> Authpf usually closes all conections including ssh. I did some
> modifications
> which allow me
> using authpf as normal program (executing from shell) but this close all
> my
> conections at the e
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 15:10:04 Artis Caune wrote:
> > 2009/2/25 Max Laier :
> > > Hello Artis,
> > >
> > > looks like a valid catch to me. I'm CC'ing the upstream maintainer
> (Bob,
> > > that's you, right?) From a quick glance there is also a minor leak in
> > > readsuffixlists in the
The following reply was made to PR conf/127511; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Olli Hauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: conf/127511: [patch] /usr/sbin/authpf: add authpf folders to
BSD.root.dist and BSD.var
> >> Looks like pfctl or pf itself added stateful semantics to my pf.conf
> >> that weren't there initially. Is this effect intended and, if so,
> >> how
> >> can I tell pf not to create states from certain rules?
> >>
> >> Thanks! And excuse me if I'm just missing something.
> >>
> >> Yar
> >>
> Hi all,
>
> After upgrading a production machine from 6.x to 7.x,
> I noticed that pf would create states from rules without
> "keep state". IMSMR, it hadn't happened before, and
> the pf.conf(5) manpage still says one has to specify
> "keep state" explicitly for pf to create states.
>
> Just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had a power outage to our building due to the fires in San
Diego
and it crashed those without UPSes. One of them is the spamd
machine.
I've brought it back up and ran fsck on all volumes. However, mail
will
not come into our mailbox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had a power outage to our building due to the fires in San Diego and it
crashed those without UPSes. One of them is the spamd machine. I've brought it
back up and ran fsck on all volumes. However, mail will not come into our
mailboxes from outside but mail can be del
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 13:07 -0700, Doug Sampson wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've been running pf+obspamd on FBSD 6.2-RELEASE.
> >
> > I appear to be blocking some addresses that appear in my
> > spamd-mywhite file
> > and I don't understand why that would be the case here. I'm
> > guessing I've
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:50:37 -0500 (CDT)
Von: "Jeremy C. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Betreff: do you use spamd with sync?
> (Maybe I should post this to the freebsdspamd berlios list instead??)
>
> If you use spamd, can you please
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 11:22 -0700, snowcrash wrote:
> hi,
> > OK, the line in syslog.conf looks fine.
> > Verbose logging is done with facility debug and the line catch this.
> >
> > Do you have some entries in the /var/log/debug.log ?
>
> hmmm. interesting. in /var/log/debug.log i've a few insta
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 10:48 -0700, snowcrash wrote:
> hi olli,
>
> > I believe this results from a reconfigure or reload from syslogd.
> > If you have not modified the syslog.conf try a restart of the spamd
> > utility.
>
> i've rebooted/restarted -- both syslod & the router itself -- a number
>
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 09:37 -0700, snowcrash wrote:
> hi,
>
> i've freebsd 6.2-release + pf + spamd installed.
>
> works great.
>
> i've launched spamd as,
>
> % ps -ax | grep -i spamd
> 989 ?? Is 0:01.42 spamd: (pf update) (spamd)
> 990 ?? I 0:00.44 /usr/local/libexec/s
Datum: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:10:40 +0300
Von: "Владимир Капустин" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
CC:
Betreff: Re: Re: SPAMD stop passing mail from WHITE-list (Peter N. M.
Hansteen)
> > > I have spamd configured like in
> > > http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/spamd.html
> > > with
Gloomy Group wrote:
Hi,
I have setup pf and altq traffic shapping on freebsd 6.1. my
configuration is as follows;
ext_if="rl0"
int_if="rl1"
table {192.168.0.1/27}
scrub in all
altq on $int_if hfsc bandwidth 912Kb queue{client1_down, default_down}
altq on $ext_if hfsc bandwidth 256Kb queue{
Hi,
I have ported the last mail/spamd port from OpenBSD 4.0 to FreeBSD.
The port has a new Layout, I made a split between pf and ipwf to handle
conflicts and patches between them.
If you are interested in testing, you can get the source here:
- the new ports (mail/spamd-pf, mail/spamd-ipfw)
ht
David J. Hall schrieb:
Hi all,
I'm using pfw to provide config for pf. This question may be slightly
in the wrong place but - how do I go about running apache in non
chrooted mode on freebsd?
And has anyone else used pfw / comments?
Cheers,
David J A Hall
Technical Sales Manager
Teleph
hi,
i have record a problem with pf and spamd without getting an error message
in
any logfiles.
grep whitelist /var/log/spamd.log | cut -d\: -f 4 | sort | uniq -c | sort |
tail -n 8
1 whitelisting 87.243.2.xxx in /var/db/spamd
2 whitelisting 194.208.66.xxx in /var/db/spamd
2 whitelis
32 matches
Mail list logo
