Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:52:03 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: Gergely CZUCZY <phoemix@harmless.hu> Cc: Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R Message-ID: <200706032052.12077.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20070603161633.GA32255@harmless.hu> References: <20070601103549.GA22490@localhost.localdomain> <4662E18E.6010404@delphij.net> <20070603161633.GA32255@harmless.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sunday 03 June 2007, Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:43:10PM +0800, LI Xin wrote: > > Max Laier wrote: > > [...] > > > > > How do people feel about removing ftp-proxy from the base > > > altogether? I think it's better off in ports anyway. Opinions? > > I would vote for including pftpx (the newer version in OpenBSD) iirc. > Almost a year ago I've made an ftp service where the ftpd was jailed to > a local IP address, and i had to use ftp-proxy for this propose. This > reverse-proxying stuff couldn't be achived with the ftp-proxy in > base, so i had to use the later version, which has the name pftpx > in the ports tree. I'd vote for replacing ftp-proxy with pftpx. 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? -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBGYw3cXyyEoT62BG0RAst3AJ9uJty0UNWIWjv/Ln7ZYyRmxPm+qwCeIJZk 58AkakQ6ECJbAx3QI4EnlcI= =Z0Ug -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200706032052.12077.max>