Am Freitag, den 09.10.2015, 07:56 +0300 schrieb Kimmo Paasiala:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Christer Solskogen
> > I boiled the rule down to this:
> > match proto tcp to port { http https } set prio 7
> >
> > But I still can't see that it does anything useful, as I don't see
> > any
> > bett
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Christer Solskogen
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ville Valkonen wrote:
>>
>> you can only queue outgoing traffic. Once you think about it, that makes
>> sense.
>>
>
> I boiled the rule down to this:
> match proto tcp to port { http https } set prio 7
>
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:22:53AM +0200, Holger Glaess wrote:
> hi
>
> what kind of information you need more ?
>
uhm. this machine is very very strange. It has devices I've never
seen before and many other devices not even recognized. Without access
to the hardware there's not much we can do h
hi
what kind of information you need more ?
holger
Stopped at 0:ehci0: unrecoverable error, controller halted
panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "ci->ci_fpcurproc == p" failed: file
"../../../../arch/i386/isa/npx.c", line 881
Stopped at Debugger+0x7: leave
TIDPID
On 08/10/15 23:17, Predrag Punosevac wrote:
Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but the way that Authpf works (I
have configured it in the past) is to load a new set of PF rules after
successful ssh login. My understanding is that by default the traffic
remains unencrypted unless we use more P
On 10/08/15 16:13, ian kremlin wrote:
Hello
Syracuse, NY -- no CD, but poster has arrived. looks great!
http://ce.gl/openbsd-5.8-poster.jpg
ian
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:51 AM, M Wheeler <6f84c...@refn.co.uk> wrote:
CD's arrived today UK. Thanks again.
Bonus points for effective use of Sy
Hello
Syracuse, NY -- no CD, but poster has arrived. looks great!
http://ce.gl/openbsd-5.8-poster.jpg
ian
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:51 AM, M Wheeler <6f84c...@refn.co.uk> wrote:
> CD's arrived today UK. Thanks again.
ah, well thanks for taking a look.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Mike Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:17:25PM -0400, Dewey Hylton wrote:
> > you missed my update which followed that post. it did not survive the
> night
> > - even with lm disabled in the kernel, some number of reboot
Kapetanakia Giannis wrote:
>
> On 05/10/15 14:35, David Coppa wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, C.L. Martinez
> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have installed an openbsd vm to works as a hostap for tablets and
> >> smartphones (android and iOS).
> >>
> >> All it is working ok: pf, h
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:17:25PM -0400, Dewey Hylton wrote:
> you missed my update which followed that post. it did not survive the night
> - even with lm disabled in the kernel, some number of reboots later i
> encountered the same failure. that update is on the list, but i'll include
> the copy
I am in NJ. Have not received anything yet.
RT
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
Original Message
From: Raf Czlonka
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:38 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: CD's arrived
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:51:28PM BST, M Wh
Em 08-10-2015 05:36, Christer Solskogen escreveu:
> I'm having a bit trouble understanding match rules and priorities. I
> have a lot of traffic on other ports than http and https, but I want
> to have top priority on them instead of the others.
>
> So I have these rules:
> match proto tcp to port
Am Donnerstag, den 08.10.2015, 15:26 +0200 schrieb Christer Solskogen:
> I boiled the rule down to this:
> match proto tcp to port { http https } set prio 7
>
> But I still can't see that it does anything useful, as I don't see any
> better speed on http with or without that rule.
> What have I mi
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ville Valkonen wrote:
>
> you can only queue outgoing traffic. Once you think about it, that makes
> sense.
>
I boiled the rule down to this:
match proto tcp to port { http https } set prio 7
But I still can't see that it does anything useful, as I don't see any
On 8 October 2015 at 07:13, Marcus MERIGHI wrote:
> mcmer-open...@tor.at (Marcus MERIGHI), 2015.10.08 (Thu) 12:26 (CEST):
>> kwesterb...@gmail.com (Kenneth Westerback), 2014.03.19 (Wed) 17:09 (CET):
>> > Alas, softraid only supports 512 byte block devices at the moment.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Any new
On 10/08, Marcus MERIGHI wrote:
> kwesterb...@gmail.com (Kenneth Westerback), 2014.03.19 (Wed) 17:09 (CET):
> > Alas, softraid only supports 512 byte block devices at the moment.
> > Ken
>
> Any news on this one? No answer as always means 'no'.
>
> I saw plus58.html:
> * Use DEV_BSIZE inste
mcmer-open...@tor.at (Marcus MERIGHI), 2015.10.08 (Thu) 12:26 (CEST):
> kwesterb...@gmail.com (Kenneth Westerback), 2014.03.19 (Wed) 17:09 (CET):
> > Alas, softraid only supports 512 byte block devices at the moment.
> > Ken
>
> Any news on this one? No answer as always means 'no'.
After re
Am 10/07/15 um 21:14 schrieb Daniel Jakots:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:59:21 +0200, Stefan Wollny
> wrote:
>
>> Am 10/07/15 um 15:47 schrieb Mike Belopuhov:
>>> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 15:41 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
Hi,
If you have noticed recent problems with trunk(4) please tr
kwesterb...@gmail.com (Kenneth Westerback), 2014.03.19 (Wed) 17:09 (CET):
> Alas, softraid only supports 512 byte block devices at the moment.
> Ken
Any news on this one? No answer as always means 'no'.
I saw plus58.html:
* Use DEV_BSIZE instead of 512 where appropriate in the kernel. This
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:50:59AM +0800, Mikael wrote:
:
> *Impression:*
> Based on what Benny and I think someone else said, I got an approximative
> impression something like that the whole disklabelling system is actually
> designed with the intention that every disklabel is required to
>
> 1)
Hi there,
I have a spamd running in greylisting mode and maintain my own blacklist
that I update manually. So far so good yesterday I just did a quite
radical adding to my blacklist :) and I noticed my outgoing traffic
jumped from around 500mb per day to 3,2gb per day. I checked the traffic
w
On 8 October 2015 at 11:36, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm having a bit trouble understanding match rules and priorities. I
> have a lot of traffic on other ports than http and https, but I want
> to have top priority on them instead of the others.
>
> So I have these rules:
> match prot
Hi!
I'm having a bit trouble understanding match rules and priorities. I
have a lot of traffic on other ports than http and https, but I want
to have top priority on them instead of the others.
So I have these rules:
match proto tcp to port { ftp, http, https, 3129 } set prio 7
match proto tcp fr
23 matches
Mail list logo
