From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 17 23:46:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032D616A41F for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:46:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from parv@pair.com) Received: from mta11.adelphia.net (mta11.adelphia.net [68.168.78.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7823043D48 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:46:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from parv@pair.com) Received: from default.chvlva.adelphia.net ([69.160.66.115]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060317234635.ORSI28141.mta11.adelphia.net@default.chvlva.adelphia.net>; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:46:35 -0500 Received: by default.chvlva.adelphia.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9FD8DB66E; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:46:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:46:36 -0500 From: Parv To: Erik =?iso-8859-15?B?TsO4cmdhYXJk?= Message-ID: <20060317234636.GC3230@holestein.holy.cow> Mail-Followup-To: Erik =?iso-8859-15?B?TsO4cmdhYXJk?= , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <441A9250.10103@locolomo.org> <441B2C2B.9050403@locolomo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <441B2C2B.9050403@locolomo.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Solved, sort of: configuring fetch to passive mode 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: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:46:36 -0000 in message <441B2C2B.9050403@locolomo.org>, wrote Erik Nørgaard thusly... > > Erik Norgaard wrote: > > >This ought to be a configuration tunable, but I can't find any > >documentaion on it: How to I force fetch to use passive mode? > > It appears that this is indeed an environment variable, and is > further set in login.conf, so this turned out not to be the cause > of the problem. > > Instead, it seems that there is a problem with pf to be > investigated. Could it be that the first time pf rules are loaded, the interface has not been configured completely (say, lacking an IP address)? - Parv --