Bryan S. Leaman wrote:
> OK, I'm trying to accomplish this with tags. However, ftp-proxy is
> always putting "quick" in the rules, so no further processing is done
> and my reply-to tagged rule (located after the anchor) is never matched.
>
> Would it make more sense to not use quick when -T opt
OK, I'm trying to accomplish this with tags. However, ftp-proxy is always
putting "quick" in the rules, so no further processing is done and my
reply-to tagged rule (located after the anchor) is never matched.
Would it make more sense to not use quick when -T option is used
with ftp-proxy?
On Dec 4, 2007 9:34 PM, Camiel Dobbelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think I helped create part of that route-to diff, but I don't think it
> belongs in base ftp-proxy. A userland daemon should not control routing
> like that.
>
> Maybe the new 'tag' option can be used for this? (or else the
Bryan S. Leaman wrote:
> I have a multiple ISP router/firewall running 4.2. To make FTP work
> properly over both gateways, I found and applied the following patch to
> ftp-proxy **see link below** and it's working great (apparently pftpx is
> very similar to ftp-proxy). Without this fix, my seco
I have a multiple ISP router/firewall running 4.2. To make FTP work
properly over both gateways, I found and applied the following patch to
ftp-proxy **see link below** and it's working great (apparently pftpx is
very similar to ftp-proxy). Without this fix, my second ftp-proxy process
(for I
5 matches
Mail list logo
