From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 27 13:34:30 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5381065673 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 13:34:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DBB8FC16 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 13:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vampire.homelinux.org (dslb-088-066-001-178.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.66.1.178]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M944P-1O5mJy36Td-00CFbI; Thu, 27 May 2010 15:34:27 +0200 Received: (qmail 14459 invoked from network); 27 May 2010 13:34:27 -0000 Received: from f8x64.laiers.local (192.168.4.188) by router.laiers.local with SMTP; 27 May 2010 13:34:27 -0000 From: Max Laier Organization: FreeBSD To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:34:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (FreeBSD/8.0-RELEASE-p2; KDE/4.4.3; amd64; ; ) References: <4BFE5A26.8030301@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4BFE5A26.8030301@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201005271534.27006.max@love2party.net> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18onoZm1S5zAxUC7uNwLWdA/V60HjkTshYm7JD 50JPjxNzehOE3yqC6aF8Uz1Q3eeeeXguJx6/5ZzU6ZLX1JtEoN VS5xKIWHbfrSLo1ypoZSQ== Cc: Subject: Re: Base import proposal: relayd X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:34:30 -0000 Hello Martin, On Thursday 27 May 2010 13:40:22 Martin Matuska wrote: > Comments and suggestions are welcome. first off, thank you for your interest in pf - more hands are greatly appreciated! On the $subj, I'm not sure what the added benefit of relayd in base is. Having it in ports makes it easier to pull in new features/releases. The same could be said for (t)ftp-proxy, but it was decided that ftp NAT support is a *basic* function of any firewall and therefore should be in the base system. Can you share your reasons for wanting it in base as opposed to ports? On the nitpicking side of things - from a quick glance: The build of relayd/ctl should probably be conditional on WITHOUT_PF. Thanks, Max