spamd-mywhite

2007-09-06 Thread Doug Sampson
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 screwed up my pf.conf file. Here's my config file: # pfctl -vvnf /etc/pf.conf ext_if =

RE: spamd-mywhite

2007-09-10 Thread Doug Sampson
> 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 > screwed up my pf.conf file. > > Here's my config file: > > # pfctl

RE: spamd-mywhite

2007-09-10 Thread Doug Sampson
> > 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 > > screwed up my pf.conf file. > > ... > > Hi, > >

RE: spamd-mywhite

2007-09-11 Thread Doug Sampson
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Doug Sampson wrote: > > > What am I doing wrong? Are CIDR records accepted by > pf+obspamd? I can't > > trace the block back to the proper rules- i.e. rule 3/0 as > shown in pflog0 > > matches up with which rule in pf.conf? > > Ma

RE: spamd-mywhite

2007-09-11 Thread Doug Sampson
> # -- silly dont't do this ! > # -- !! This file is no table, it is even not for usage in pf > ruleset !! > # remove this! table persist \ > # remove this! file "/usr/local/etc/spamd/spamd.alloweddomains" Removed. > OK, back to the ruleset. > > # -- Let all smtp traffic from the table pass

RE: spamd nonfunctioning due to power outage in SD

2007-10-30 Thread Doug Sampson
<..snip..> > 200.46.204.71.53512 > 127.0.0.1.25: S > 2390205679:2390205679(0) win 65535 > > 038980 rule 3/0(match): block in on rl0: > 200.46.204.71.65136 > 127.0.0.1.25: S 1802046267:1802046267(0) w > > > > Which of the rules above does rule 3/0(match) refer to? > > It's easier to count the

Bacula File/Storage Connection Woes using PF

2008-03-21 Thread Doug Sampson
I want to back up a client running packet filter. I am using Bacula to backup this client to a Bacula server in the internal network. The Bacula client has two interfaces- one external and one internal. The client's internal IF is 192.168.1.25. The Bacula server is at 192.168.1.17. When I attempt

RE: Bacula File/Storage Connection Woes using PF

2008-03-24 Thread Doug Sampson
> On Friday 21 March 2008 21:59:46 Doug Sampson wrote: > > I want to back up a client running packet filter. I am > using Bacula to > > backup this client to a Bacula server in the internal network. The > > Bacula client has two interfaces- one external and one internal. T

RE: Bacula File/Storage Connection Woes using PF

2008-03-25 Thread Doug Sampson
> > Is there another way of writing rules that will enable the > Bacula client to > > pass packets to the correct port number? > > > Yes, make the 1st rule > > block log all > > to drop both ingress and egress traffic by default. > > Secondly get rid of the stateless rules. Use keep stat

RE: Bacula File/Storage Connection Woes using PF

2008-03-26 Thread Doug Sampson
> This isn't a reply to you (Doug), but -- do not blindly use > "keep state" > everywhere! > > There's been too many cases I've experienced where using "keep state" > blindly results in state-mismatch increasing at a very fast > rate. When > I implemented this mentality on our production server

Differences in PF between FBSD 8.2 & 9.0?

2012-02-14 Thread Doug Sampson
I got bitten by PF when upgrading from 8.2 to 9.0. It refused to allow any incoming mail. I'm using spamd in conjunction with pf. I use a combination of natting along with redirections in conjunction with the normal pass/block rules. I cannot for the life of me find a list of significant change

RE: Differences in PF between FBSD 8.2 & 9.0?

2012-02-14 Thread Doug Sampson
> I got bitten by PF when upgrading from 8.2 to 9.0. It refused to allow > any incoming mail. I'm using spamd in conjunction with pf. I use a > combination of natting along with redirections in conjunction with the > normal pass/block rules. > > I cannot for the life of me find a list of significa

RE: Differences in PF between FBSD 8.2 & 9.0?

2012-03-10 Thread Doug Sampson
> On 2/15/12 2:22 AM, Doug Sampson wrote: > > I got bitten by PF when upgrading from 8.2 to 9.0. It refused to allow > > any incoming mail. I'm using spamd in conjunction with pf. I use a > > combination of natting along with redirections in conjunction with the &

RE: Differences in PF between FBSD 8.2 & 9.0?

2012-03-12 Thread Doug Sampson
> > I'm now getting back to this issue after being diverted to other > projects. Spam has been noticed by our staff and they're not happy. :) > > > > Here's what the tcp dump show: > > > > mailfilter-root@~# tcpdump -nei pflog0 port 8025 > > tcpdump: WARNING: pflog0: no IPv4 address assigned > > tc

collision errors

2007-04-05 Thread Doug Sampson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] netstat -i NameMtu Network Address Ipkts IerrsOpkts Oerrs Coll xl01500 00:10:5a:85:91:ad 950032 0 61783710 45299 xl01500 192.168.xxx 192.168.xxx.xxx 680757 - 609403 - - rl01500 00:40:f4:5d:6a:d5 21251