Alright, alright. I vented, you vented. Fair enough.
No hard feelings.
regards,
--ropers
2009/4/9 Daniel Ouellet :
> ropers wrote:
>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> That was a bit of a dick move.
>
> Happy for you that you have a bigger dick then me then. (;>
>
> I saw the various cvs changes commit and did r
ropers wrote:
Daniel,
That was a bit of a dick move.
Happy for you that you have a bigger dick then me then. (;>
I saw the various cvs changes commit and did read the different one on
misc@ as well. I asked the question because it wasn't clear to me. May
be I tumble on words meaning or may
>>> I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
>>> from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
>>> I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
>>> finish, but scrub isn't going to be remove all together from pf is it?
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Daniel Ouellet [2009-04-08 21:12]:
Which will soon be no longer.
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
finish, but scrub isn't going to be remove all together from p
* Daniel Ouellet [2009-04-08 21:12]:
>> Which will soon be no longer.
>
> I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
> from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
>
> I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
>
>I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
>from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
>
>I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
>finish, but scrub isn't going to be remove all together from pf is it?
>
>I am
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:06:37 -0400
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> > Which will soon be no longer.
>
> I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of
> changes from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf
> in CVS.
>
> I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:06:37PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
>> Which will soon be no longer.
>
> I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
> from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
>
> I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it'
Which will soon be no longer.
I only have one small question left if I may. I do see plenty of changes
from Henning and others on this and still plenty going in pf in CVS.
I am not sure I follow it all yet and may be it's because it's not all
finish, but scrub isn't going to be remove all to
* Joe Gidi [2009-04-08 15:21]:
> > On 2009-04-07, Dirk Mast wrote:
> >> Dan Carley wrote:
> >>
> >>> Technically it won't be relayd that is the cause of your woes because
> >>> it
> >>> is PF will be performing the grunt work of the TCP redirection.
> >>>
> >>> Based on what Brian said, you may f
> On 2009-04-07, Dirk Mast wrote:
>> Dan Carley wrote:
>>
>>> Technically it won't be relayd that is the cause of your woes because
>>> it
>>> is PF will be performing the grunt work of the TCP redirection.
>>>
>>> Based on what Brian said, you may find that playing with 'scrub out'
>>> and
>>> 'm
On 2009-04-07, Dirk Mast wrote:
> Dan Carley wrote:
>
>> Technically it won't be relayd that is the cause of your woes because it
>> is PF will be performing the grunt work of the TCP redirection.
>>
>> Based on what Brian said, you may find that playing with 'scrub out' and
>> 'max-mss' in your
Dan Carley wrote:
> Technically it won't be relayd that is the cause of your woes because it
> is PF will be performing the grunt work of the TCP redirection.
>
> Based on what Brian said, you may find that playing with 'scrub out' and
> 'max-mss' in your PF rules alleviates the issue.
Which wil
2009/4/5 Brian McCann
> I've seen similar problems...not with relayd, but it still may apply. I
> had
> a server that was behind a Linksys router on a DSL connection, being
> accessed by a remote user . The window size (iirc) at the remote user was
> lower then usual, and the DSL provider was b
I've seen similar problems...not with relayd, but it still may apply. I had
a server that was behind a Linksys router on a DSL connection, being
accessed by a remote user . The window size (iirc) at the remote user was
lower then usual, and the DSL provider was blocking the ICMP messages to
alter
My company has a web application running on a set of web servers
that we're load balancing with relayd.
We've recently learned of a problem where end users who have:
- Comcast cable internet connections,
- Linksys cable routers provided by Comcast, and
- the Linksys router's "firewall protection"
17 matches
Mail list logo
