It could be that badwolf block the redirect from the domain root
to www and the cert is encopassing only www ??
I'm just observing the behavior of the website and it seems always
switching to www.
Apr 1, 2025 15:41:08 Dan :
> The error continue to happen to me only in Badwolf, on stable
>
> Runn
> Then all I and Peter Hansteen said stand true. Having both interfaces
> on the same subnetwork won't work easily without unnecessarily
> complicated routing "hacks". Simply move one of the sides of the
> network to a different subnet and go from there.
It has been working for 20+ years and n
>As per subject:
>
>TLS Error for https://www.openbsdfoundation.org
Ops, I'm sorry that you will miss my donation
Dan
--
Blog: http://bsd.gaoxio.com - Repo: https://code.5mode.com
Please reply to the mailing-list, leveraging technical stuff.
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 02:25:38PM +0200, Dan wrote:
>
> As per subject:
>
> TLS Error for https://www.openbsdfoundation.org
It would help a lot if you quoted the error message you get.
But then the site loads with no issues from here, so I suspect an intermittent
issue.
So please try again,
> > > > If you are trying to setup a firewall, Peter Hansteen's "Book of PF"
> > > > will
> > > > surely help. It is not an absolute requirement, and you can wing it
> > > > just by reading the man pages and asking around for help, but it will
> > > > surely save you some time.
> > >
> > > The
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 05:58:18PM +, otto.cooper wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 31st, 2025 at 5:21 PM, Zé Loff wrote:
>
> > Any particular reason for having two different interfaces on the same
> > subnet, with the same priority? Can you communicate with machines
> > connected to the LAN switc
> The gateway is on 192.168.1.1, the lan is on 192.168.0/24. It is just the way
> it is.
As I said, the above line contains a typing error:
192.168.0/24 is the typing error,
192.168.1.0/24 is the correct data.
This is the current setup.
Gateways
---
192.168.1.1 is the first gateway
On Tuesday, April 1st, 2025 at 7:52 AM, otto.cooper
wrote:
> > If you are trying to setup a firewall, Peter Hansteen's "Book of PF" will
> > surely help. It is not an absolute requirement, and you can wing it
> > just by reading the man pages and asking around for help, but it will
> > surely sa
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 07:47:09AM +, otto.cooper wrote:
>
> > Then all I and Peter Hansteen said stand true. Having both interfaces
> > on the same subnetwork won't work easily without unnecessarily
> > complicated routing "hacks". Simply move one of the sides of the
> > network to a differ
Beside the donation joke.. ;-)
The error continue to happen to me only in Badwolf, on stable
Running Badwolf version: 1.3.0
Buildtime WebKit version: 2.44.4
Runtime WebKit version: 2.44.4
https://gaox.io/l/obfcerterr
Ie. in Firefox the cert load fine.
Dan
--
Blog: http://bsd.gaoxio.co
On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 17:17:06 +0200,
Dan wrote:
>
> It could be that badwolf block the redirect from the domain root
> to www and the cert is encopassing only www ??
> I'm just observing the behavior of the website and it seems always
> switching to www.
>
FWI I was redirected to https://www.open
Have you looked at rdomains to deal with multiple ISPs providing conflicting
network?
On April 1, 2025 10:57:56 AM MDT, Brian Conway wrote:
>> If I put em0 and em1 on DHCP, and connect each to their own
>> gateway/router, they will get their respective configuration, but this
>> does not solve
Hi Jon,
Jon Higgs wrote on Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:55:13AM +1100:
> I'm struggling to find a clean way to suppress warnings from security(8)
> about users without a password.
>
> I've intentionally removed the password from the user 'git' so that it
> can gotd can serve anonymous users with git
> If I put em0 and em1 on DHCP, and connect each to their own
> gateway/router, they will get their respective configuration, but this
> does not solve the problem. Consider the case where both ISPs use
> 192.168.1.1/24: em0 and em1 will get two configurations for apparently
> the same network,
Thank you for the recommendations. I appreciate it.
> Your LAN does *not* have to be in the same network segment as your ISP
> gateway.
Agreed.
The problem is the conflict that occurs naturally when connecting any two ISPs.
> If your ISP changes the configuration of the gateway it provides, o
On Tuesday, April 1st, 2025 at 7:54 AM, otto.cooper
wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 1st, 2025 at 7:52 AM, otto.cooper otto.coo...@proton.me
> wrote:
>
> > > If you are trying to setup a firewall, Peter Hansteen's "Book of PF" will
> > > surely help. It is not an absolute requirement, and you can wi
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 07:47:09AM +, otto.cooper wrote:
>
> > Then all I and Peter Hansteen said stand true. Having both interfaces
> > on the same subnetwork won't work easily without unnecessarily
> > complicated routing "hacks". Simply move one of the sides of the
> > network to a differ
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:32:26AM +, otto.cooper wrote:
> It is only a coincidence that we have two gateways and the LAN
> apparently on the same sub-network. When opening an account with an
> ISP, their gateway/router comes as part of the contract, it is a
> hardware device, and it may have *
I think this is the right direction.
On Tuesday, April 1st, 2025 at 8:42 AM, Claudio Jeker
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 07:47:09AM +, otto.cooper wrote:
>
> > > Then all I and Peter Hansteen said stand true. Having both interfaces
> > > on the same subnetwork won't work easily without
It is only a coincidence that we have two gateways and the LAN apparently on
the same sub-network. When opening an account with an ISP, their gateway/router
comes as part of the contract, it is a hardware device, and it may have *any*
*non-customizable* RFC-1918 address. One cannot and must not
> > To be precise, I have all editions. The one on my desk is the third
> > edition, 2015.
>
> The book does not answer to the question of how to add or remove an interface
> on egress using hostname.if.
> The book uses egress. If I were to use the book, I would have my LAN on the
> internet. So
21 matches
Mail list logo