On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Daniel Bye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:43:26PM -0600, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> > It's not a big issue, but I'm wondering if there is a DNSBl that lists
> > IPs that are engaging in brute force ssh attacks. And if there is
> > such a list
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:43:26PM -0600, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> It's not a big issue, but I'm wondering if there is a DNSBl that lists
> IPs that are engaging in brute force ssh attacks. And if there is
> such a list, is there a way to integrate that information into a
> firewall or sshd
It's not a big issue, but I'm wondering if there is a DNSBl that lists
IPs that are engaging in brute force ssh attacks. And if there is
such a list, is there a way to integrate that information into a
firewall or sshd.
As I've said this really isn't a big issue for me, as the brute force
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:27:40PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:35:30PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>
> >> Okay, I guess I'm a little confused by the line about "ONLY allow data
> >> back on these ports IF the windows
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:35:30PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>> Okay, I guess I'm a little confused by the line about "ONLY allow data
>> back on these ports IF the windows box has established the connection
>> out first then deny everything else."
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:35:30PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:05:28PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> >> Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Jack Barnett w
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:05:28PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>> Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Jack Barnett wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ok, I had some progress with this last night. Basically wh
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:05:28PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Jack Barnett wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, I had some progress with this last night. Basically what I do is:
> >>
> >> in natd - redirect_port 1000 t
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Jack Barnett wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I had some progress with this last night. Basically what I do is:
>>
>> in natd - redirect_port 1000 to 1 to the internal windows box.
>> set ipfw to "open" file wall.
>>
>> Ob
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Jack Barnett wrote:
>
> Ok, I had some progress with this last night. Basically what I do is:
>
> in natd - redirect_port 1000 to 1 to the internal windows box.
> set ipfw to "open" file wall.
>
> Obviously this isn't prefect - but gives some idea of wh
m: Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Firewalls in FreeBSD?
To: "Terry Sposato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Polytropon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Freebsd questions"
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 11:25 PM
On Thu, Oct 3
--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Firewalls in FreeBSD?
> To: "Terry Sposato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Polytropon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Jack!
Right now I have a Windows machine a FreeBSD natd/firewall then a
cable modem.
This is working for web surfing. But I've been playing a lot of
games
lately and it doesn't work at all (for multiplayer/internet
games).
As a fellow gamer, I've found that PF with stateful filte
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:36:58PM +1100, Terry Sposato wrote:
Quoting Jack Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
yes, that is my setup.
hrm... well, I disabled the firewall completely, restarted, but still
doesn't work.
I have gateway and natd
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:36:58PM +1100, Terry Sposato wrote:
> Quoting Jack Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>
>>yes, that is my setup.
>>hrm... well, I disabled the firewall completely, restarted, but still
>>doesn't work.
>>I have gateway and natd both enabled. x10 is the "exter
Quoting Jack Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
yes, that is my setup.
hrm... well, I disabled the firewall completely, restarted, but still
doesn't work.
I have gateway and natd both enabled. x10 is the "external" interface
(the one that is dhcp and connects to the cable modem).
I
yes, that is my setup.
hrm... well, I disabled the firewall completely, restarted, but still
doesn't work.
I have gateway and natd both enabled. x10 is the "external" interface
(the one that is dhcp and connects to the cable modem).
I don't want to redirect anything to my window
If I understood you correctly, your setting is:
(Modem/Router)---DHCP---(FreeBSD)---("Windows")
I may respond directly on your configuration settings:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:19:31 -0500, Jack Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gateway_enable="YES"
> #firewall_enable="YES"
>
Right now I have a Windows machine a FreeBSD natd/firewall then a
cable modem.
This is working for web surfing. But I've been playing a lot of games
lately and it doesn't work at all (for multiplayer/internet games).
Basically the games send/receive data on random ports, and I thin
On Fri, 2 May 2008, Zane C.B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:50:06 +0100
Bruce Cran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug Hardie wrote:
FreeBSD supports 3 firewalls: IPF, IPFW, and PF. Some time ago
(perhaps years) I seem to recall some discussion that one or more
of those was better main
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:50:06 +0100
Bruce Cran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Hardie wrote:
> > FreeBSD supports 3 firewalls: IPF, IPFW, and PF. Some time ago
> > (perhaps years) I seem to recall some discussion that one or more
> > of those was better maintained
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:29 -0700
perikillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Bruce Cran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Doug Hardie wrote:
> >
> > > FreeBSD supports 3 firewalls: IPF, IPFW, and PF. Some time ago
&
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Bruce Cran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Hardie wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD supports 3 firewalls: IPF, IPFW, and PF. Some time ago
> > (perhaps years) I seem to recall some discussion that one or more of those
> > was better maintain
Doug Hardie wrote:
FreeBSD supports 3 firewalls: IPF, IPFW, and PF. Some time ago
(perhaps years) I seem to recall some discussion that one or more of
those was better maintained and higher quality than the others. I don't
see any indications of this in the handbook. Several years
of this in the handbook. Several years ago I needed to do traffic shaping
and used IPFW with dummynet.
and use it again. for me most logic, most clear and gives what i need.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mail
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:44:35 -0500
"Eric Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PF supports traffic shaping via ALTQ.
I've been meaning to try this. does it support 'pipes' in the same sense as
ipfw ? if so, it seems another reason use ipfw is gone...
B
_
{Beto|Norberto
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Doug Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FreeBSD supports 3 firewalls: IPF, IPFW, and PF. Some time ago (perhaps
> years) I seem to recall some discussion that one or more of those was better
> maintained and higher quality than the others.
FreeBSD supports 3 firewalls: IPF, IPFW, and PF. Some time ago
(perhaps years) I seem to recall some discussion that one or more of
those was better maintained and higher quality than the others. I
don't see any indications of this in the handbook. Several years ago
I needed
eculp wrote:
Quoting Mehul Ved <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:15 AM, eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My problem is that I haven't done a linux install since before
FreeBSD 2.2 IIRC and have no idea which version would be the most
versatile and has an installer that is basica
Quoting Ezat - Ezatech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ed,
If flash is bothering you, its quite easy to just install the linux
version of firefox on FreeBSD.
Sabayon linux is a multimedia powerhouse. Definately needs some good
spec hardware to run even after most of the xgl services have b
Quoting Schiz0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:45 PM, eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx 30
pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized that
a large part of the problems that they had before th
Ed,
If flash is bothering you, its quite easy to just install the linux
version of firefox on FreeBSD.
Sabayon linux is a multimedia powerhouse. Definately needs some good
spec hardware to run even after most of the xgl services have been
disabled. The sabayon image is around 4.
Quoting Rico Secada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:45:14 -0600
eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx
30 pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized
that a large part of the problems that they had be
Quoting Predrag Punosevac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
eculp wrote:
I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx
30 pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized
that a large part of the problems that they had before the firewall
was caused by the 30 window
Quoting Mehul Ved <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:15 AM, eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My problem is that I haven't done a linux install since before
FreeBSD 2.2 IIRC and have no idea which version would be the most
versatile and has an installer that is basically brain dead
Quoting Chad Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mar 1, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Rico Secada wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:45:14 -0600
eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx
30 pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized
On Mar 1, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Rico Secada wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:45:14 -0600
eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx
30 pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized
that a large part of the problems that the
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:15 AM, eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My problem is that I haven't done a linux install since before
> FreeBSD 2.2 IIRC and have no idea which version would be the most
> versatile and has an installer that is basically brain dead simple
> with most all drivers. I
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:45:14 -0600
eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx
> 30 pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized
> that a large part of the problems that they had before the firewall
> was caused by the 3
eculp wrote:
I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx 30
pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized that
a large part of the problems that they had before the firewall was
caused by the 30 windows pc's that were connected directly to the
ISP's wi
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:45 PM, eculp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx 30
> pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized that
> a large part of the problems that they had before the firewall was
> caused by the 30
I have installed freebsd server in a small company that has approx 30
pc's of all sizes, shapes, brands, etc. They have just realized that
a large part of the problems that they had before the firewall was
caused by the 30 windows pc's that were connected directly to the
ISP's wireless rou
Here is a great blog on seven Linux/BSD firewalls.
http://linuxcult.blogspot.com/2007/11/seven-different-linuxbsd-firewalls.html
The winner is PFSense which is (ta-da!), based on FreeBSD. I have been using
PFSense for nearly a year now and totally agree with this blog's conclu
Section 28.6.5.7 An Example NAT and Stateful Ruleset
Example Ruleset #2:
..
$cmd 020 $skip tcp from any to x.x.x.x 53 out via $pif setup keep-state
..
AFAIK dns use also udp, so tcp is not really correct here.
I have changed the tcp->ip, but still was not work because of "setup"
:) That mean "t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> You really don't want to mix machines which are trusted with machines
> which are not trusted on the same subnet. If you can't control which
> client machines get which IPs, you pretty much cannot use firewall rules
> to restr
On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:50 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Actually, no. While rpcbind/portmap/portmapper is assigned to 111/
tcp &
udp, most other RPC services get assigned high port numbers in the
327xx
range, but that varies considerably from platform to platform.
True. NFS is port 2049 by defau
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck Swiger wrote:
>
> Actually, no. While rpcbind/portmap/portmapper is assigned to 111/tcp &
> udp, most other RPC services get assigned high port numbers in the 327xx
> range, but that varies considerably from platform to platform.
True. NFS is p
On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
It is typically not useful to implement firewall rules between NFS
servers and legitimate NFS clients.
The large number of RPC services using randomly assigned ports
needed by NFS and the fact that machines which trust each other
enough t
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Just wondering if anyone has IPFilter / nfsd setup properly on their
boxes with any beta versions of FBSD.
It is typically not useful to implement firewall rules between NFS
servers and legitimate NFS clients.
The large
Sorry,
this mail was for the ipfilter's list...
> Box:freeBSD 6.0, ipf: IP Filter: v4.1.8 (416), Kernel: IP Filter: v4.1.8
>
> Network layout:
> ---
> other building [ PCs - 192.168.80.0/24 ]
> |
> g1 (ipf - vr0:192.168.80.2 <-> sis0:10.10.10.13)
> |
> My Lan ( 10.10.10.0/24 )
>
Box:freeBSD 6.0, ipf: IP Filter: v4.1.8 (416), Kernel: IP Filter: v4.1.8
Network layout:
---
other building [ PCs - 192.168.80.0/24 ]
|
g1 (ipf - vr0:192.168.80.2 <-> sis0:10.10.10.13)
|
My Lan ( 10.10.10.0/24 )
[ PCs (DefaultGw = g2) ]
[ MailSrv (10.10.10.12) (pop3/smtp/ssh) (Def
Pol Hallen wrote:
Hi all,
i'd like build a rules firewall 4 my machine on the internet and my lan.
I see: IPFW, PF, IPF.
I have a main server on the internet and several clients.
Which firewall package i should use?(study)
I known iptables (4 linux) and i wrote a rules for it, but i prefer u
Hi all,
i'd like build a rules firewall 4 my machine on the internet and my lan.
I see: IPFW, PF, IPF.
I have a main server on the internet and several clients.
Which firewall package i should use?(study)
I known iptables (4 linux) and i wrote a rules for it, but i prefer use a
native freebsd
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 04:01:08PM -0700, Pat Maddox wrote:
> I've got the pf firewall installed, and every time I run cvsup,
> portupgrade or try to install ports, I have to disable it. What
> outgoing and incoming ports do I need to allow in order to run these
> without disabling the firewall?
I've got the pf firewall installed, and every time I run cvsup,
portupgrade or try to install ports, I have to disable it. What
outgoing and incoming ports do I need to allow in order to run these
without disabling the firewall?
___
freebsd-questions@fre
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:14:03PM -0400, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> I had thought about this one a bit though, and figured that it would be
> a simple translation to the external network:
> ${fwcmd} add pass log tcp from any to ${ip} 22 setup limit src-addr 4
> But I never put it in because I don't
Hey all. I'm getting ready (again) to set up my new system with 5.3
RELEASE the moment the ISOs are published.
One thing I need to understand better is the current firewall tool, and
how to get my 4.10 firewall moved over from ipfw to pf. Seems there
will be a few issues to work out.
Another th
On 2004-08-04 08:15, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The default set of firewall packet inspection rules that ipfw loads will
> > block *EVERYTHING* so you might want to do a bit of research on the
> > available rulesets by reading about rc.firew
Honestly, you'll get much better response if you ask 1 question per email.
An email this long with multiple questions in it forces someone to read
the entire email just to see if there's something there they want to answer.
DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Giorgos et al,
>
> thanks for your pa
Hi Giorgos et al,
thanks for your patience.
I have enclosed the output of dsmeg, ps, XF86Config if it helps in
understanding why my system runs slower than W2000 & why I cannot connect to
the net via my broadband connection.
--- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bearing this in mind
On 2004-08-01 20:33, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You have lots of old (out of date) packages installed. Have you
> > gotten your FreeBSD workstation to connect to the network yet? If
> > yes, you can install `portupgrade' and use it to upda
Problem: When downloading huge files from the server we can't use the
client webbrowser.
Setup: One firewall/DHCP/Gateway which all clients and the server
routes through. The clients goes via no router when connecting to the
server. The server is equipped with double NIC, however only one is
used.
- Original Message -
From: "Sebastian Kutsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:17 AM
Subject: static NAT and firewalls
> Hi,
>
> if have have configured static NAT on machine A do the TCP/IP-packeges
> get
Hi,
if have have configured static NAT on machine A do the TCP/IP-packeges
get injectet into the firewall of the machine A or do they reach machine
B unfiltered?
Sebastian
--
If you share pain
there is less of it.
If you share joy
there is more of it.
__
"Loren M. Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It looks like ipfilter is a newer and more improved over ipfw
They're independent implementations.
> It looks like ipfilter is a newer and more improved over ipfw, but I'm
> not sure. I'm looking for a good firewall with similar functionality to
> l
ugh,
> > that FreeBSD has two different implentations of firewalls. One uses
> > ipfw to configure it and has natd for nat, the other uses ipf and has
> > ipmon, ipnat, ipfs for controlling it. Is this true?
>
> Pretty much.
>
> There are some more firewall implemen
"Loren M. Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to learn how to configure my firewall on FreeBSD and there
> seems to be quite a few commands related to it. It looks like, though,
> that FreeBSD has two different implentations of firewalls. One uses
>
I'm trying to learn how to configure my firewall on FreeBSD and there
seems to be quite a few commands related to it. It looks like, though,
that FreeBSD has two different implentations of firewalls. One uses
ipfw to configure it and has natd for nat, the other uses ipf and has
ipmon,
On Monday 02 February 2004 19:04, you wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed explanation.
> The light bulb has turned on in my head.
> I learn something new all the time on this list.
>
> So let me put this in my own words to verify I understand correctly.
> Lets say I have gateway box running 5 PCs on L
by my firewall and handle the
bi-directional traffic transparently?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 12:02 PM
To: JJB
Cc: Jorn Argelo; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: proxies and firewalls
> I have Lan with private ip addr
ginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:28 AM
To: JJB
Cc: Jorn Argelo; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: proxies and firewalls
Are you saying you know of an proxy server that does the nat
function?
Actually
> I have Lan with private ip address that send packets to
> public internet. How does an proxy server solve the private ip
> address versus my public ip address problem?
Simply through not routing / NATting at all.
Instead of just forwarding the packets rewriting the IP headers like a NAT
device
solve the private ip
address versus my public ip address problem?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:28 AM
To: JJB
Cc: Jorn Argelo; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: proxies and firewalls
> Are
names should be self explaining.
Example for an app layer gateway:
Port: fwtk-2.1
Path: /usr/ports/security/fwtk
Info: A toolkit used for building firewalls based on proxy services
Example for a circuit level proxy:
Port: nylon-1.2
Path: /usr/ports/net/nylon
Info: A Unix SOCKS 4 and 5
: proxies and firewalls
When one is connected to a proxy server, the proxy server makes a
connection
to the outside world and transports the data to the computer who is
requesting that information. So the client computer won't make a
true
connection to the outside world, but it only connects t
Monday 02 February 2004 10:38, Hiren wrote:
> greetings all
>
> i often come across proxies and firewalls under the security section of
> tutorials and guides, i have read that one can create proxies of any
> internet service like ftp www etc.
> my question is what exactly is a
greetings all
i often come across proxies and firewalls under the security section of
tutorials and guides, i have read that one can create proxies of any
internet service like ftp www etc.
my question is what exactly is a proxy and how does it play a role in
security, why and how does it
email 1
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 05:22 am, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, paul van den bergen wrote:
> > You can also get CF and similar solid stat memory chips to IDE connection
> > adaptors for around AU$30...
>
> URL?
> Sounds like an interesting option for a Firewall I need to do myse
Hi All,
How to set VPN over firewalls.
Thanks in advance
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
> We have two firewalls sitting on gigabit links. Each has 2 Netgear GA620
> (ti driver) fibre cards with about 7 vlans spread across them. Both these
> machines run at *very* high interrupt loads (95 - 100% during business hours
>
We have two firewalls sitting on gigabit links. Each has 2 Netgear GA620
(ti driver) fibre cards with about 7 vlans spread across them. Both these
machines run at *very* high interrupt loads (95 - 100% during business hours
(mostly 100%), 80 - 90 % during off hours). They are 1GHz P3 machines
81 matches
Mail list logo
