spamd pf rule question

2017-10-12 Thread Markus Rosjat
Hi there, it's a quiet simple question :) I have a rule like this pass in log(to $log_spamd_if) on $ext_if proto tcp to port smtp rdr-to 127.0.0.1 port spamd and was wondering if it's better to use pass in log(to $log_spamd_if) on $ext_if proto tcp to port smtp divert-to 127.0.0.1 port spam

Re: pf rule question

2007-02-16 Thread tony sarendal
On 16/02/07, Michael Kreikenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > Am 12.02.2007 um 03:27 schrieb Peter: > > > Le Vendredi 9 Fivrier 2007 13:55, Rafa3 Brodewicz a icrit : > >> Hello. > >> > >> While trying to configure pf to pass dhcp requests I've build a > >> simple rule: > >> > >> block log

Re: pf rule question

2007-02-16 Thread Michael Kreikenbaum
Hi Am 12.02.2007 um 03:27 schrieb Peter: Le Vendredi 9 Fivrier 2007 13:55, Rafa3 Brodewicz a icrit : Hello. While trying to configure pf to pass dhcp requests I've build a simple rule: block log all pass in log on $inf_if proto udp from { $int_if:network 0.0.0.0 } \ port 68 to 255.25

Re: pf rule question

2007-02-11 Thread Peter
Le Vendredi 9 Fivrier 2007 13:55, Rafa3 Brodewicz a icrit : > Hello. > > While trying to configure pf to pass dhcp requests I've build a > simple rule: > > block log all > pass in log on $inf_if proto udp from { $int_if:network 0.0.0.0 } \ > port 68 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 > > But it seems

pf rule question

2007-02-09 Thread Rafał Brodewicz
Hello. While trying to configure pf to pass dhcp requests I've build a simple rule: block log all pass in log on $inf_if proto udp from { $int_if:network 0.0.0.0 } \ port 68 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 But it seems that above rule pass out udp to port 68 (like it was having keep state add