From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Nov 1 3:48:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za [196.31.7.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3BA37B403; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 03:48:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.seasidesoftware.co.za) by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15zGLe-000Jm7-00; Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:49:26 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Cc: ru@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Protocol-specific dynamic IPFW rule lifetimes? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:43:15 +0200." <75905.1004614995@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:49:26 +0200 Message-ID: <76018.1004615366@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:43:15 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > I'm happy with the defaults for HTTP, SMTP and others. However, I'd > like the dynamic rules used to service SSH, pcAnywhere and Microsoft > Terminal Services to live _much_ longer. Just before people shoot the question down, I _do_ know about OpenSSH's ClientAliveInterval and ClientAliveCountMax. However, the question is still important for the more general case, since we can't ensure that every service offered through the firewall will implement some kind of "keep alive" system. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message