Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R

From: Chris Marlatt <cmarlatt_at_rxsec.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:02:12 -0400

Max Laier wrote:
> 
> Okay, but why?  Is there any reason you can't use pftpx (or the newer 
> version of ftp-proxy) from the ports tree?  Why does ftp-proxy have to be 
> in base?
> 

Why does named, or tftp, or openssh, or ntp, or,.. or...

Why shouldn't there be have a fully packaged pf implementation in the 
base OS?

Received on Sun Jun 03 2007 - 17:29:02 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: eculp_at_encontacto.net: "Couldn't build a release with this morning's sources md1 fixit floppy space problem."
Previous message: Gergely CZUCZY: "Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R"
In reply to: Max Laier: "Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R"
Next in thread: Dag-Erling Smørgrav: "Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:11 UTC