From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 21 17:36:35 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F88106566B for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fullblaststorm@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f227.google.com (mail-fx0-f227.google.com [209.85.220.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E70B8FC18 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm27 with SMTP id 27so4724926fxm.3 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:36:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=F1zkYVLz5/FAeQKbHezUYcXxMICJp91U0JXlJEZnsOE=; b=JUUp6SbFEb5x9bnDr6JAXvK7G1A5C+gxJf9dq6z+Ky9Pm9uV9PyUQQNWz1gKBgncSe YET5w0P3coIzCp2C9e3yq9ldI7PKaCnnywe/18b3K7lJZF3hgACz7Fj4VtoxruktoYTH +rGdekSBk5sJvDPbX7UHUYuHtHdJQ+2EWs7Do= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=dx68wqKdObc3FHFRDWzvQt7WRpbpy4pBiSr0T5bSmYK5SYrpAVA6Fd+EpCWSryhXsO WhBL71EtcfPgYcXA4EZvoMphQi64VWWUzOEhOJwVqz3oQkFMZNajyt++1aKDtE5ccjtU JpKtklHgGMuvZ4y50/gWVT62GhmHW+f6LHhfU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.170.24 with SMTP id q24mr337643hbe.2.1258824994060; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:36:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091121170341.2c1bf3cb@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <6c51dbb10911210659t2e7b87dcg66d71544312d4172@mail.gmail.com> <20091121152720.GA3878@current.Sisis.de> <20091121170341.2c1bf3cb@gumby.homeunix.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:36:33 +0600 Message-ID: <6c51dbb10911210936m67b2127cif8074723049c7046@mail.gmail.com> From: Victor Lyapunov To: RW , FreeBSD Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Subject: Re: sending mail with attachments always fail (FreeBSD/pf) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:35 -0000 > This kind of thing is often due to a mtu blackhole - when a larger > email causes a full size IP packet to be sent. I don't see why PF > should make a difference though, IFAIK it's supposed to let ICMP through > when it's learned state on a tcp connection. Thanks for your answer. Don't know whether it is relevant to the particular issue, but i tried both rulesets first with `scrub in all fragment reassemble` and another one without it, but neither worked for me. I'm kinda upset by the fact that pf can't handle large emails. Any other ideas how to possibly fix it, please?