From owner-freebsd-questions  Sat Sep  7 17:19:59 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA23151
          for questions-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 17:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wave.cyberbeach.net (wave.cyberbeach.net [205.150.79.11])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA23145
          for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 17:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sales (sail.cyberbeach.net [205.150.79.24]) by wave.cyberbeach.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08834 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 20:19:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960908122054.008c93ac@post.cyberbeach.net>
X-Sender: kurt@post.cyberbeach.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 08:20:54 -0400
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
From: Kurt Schafer <kurt@cyberbeach.net>
Subject: Sendmail...the saga
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Timeouts, timeouts, still timeouts on outbound mail.

Would I be opening the gate to disaster if I were to set my Cisco to use
the following filter rules for both incoming and outbound packets ?

permit icmp any any
permit tcp any any
permit udp any any


I want to remove as many variables from the equation as possible. I would
think the above filter rules would essentially result in the router happily
letting anything go...

....man....