Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 06:36:40 -0700 From: "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Blacklist IP file for IPFW? Message-ID: <E909476A-5D91-44A7-9AE1-30BD2A6BC08D@kreme.com> In-Reply-To: <CAEW8WPuirfT-uq2XOBf%2B1w6StXQLEtSpCgAEELL5pLtthk9tog@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEW8WPsMvq7bdAQ4cu=RYZQ=PfXMmbUUQ-yi_0qUAjt-nWTf=Q@mail.gmail.com> <9585fce4-b48d-a210-d62f-a2100c0cf929@tundraware.com> <CAEW8WPunc9%2B-7qybkrnDep3R08ApgjBkA2n=fi%2ByU8psTJRkNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEW8WPtqeFDahGMN8h4qijXe6oug7H6uEyG2hTuqs53G2K98eA@mail.gmail.com> <e3aa5e53-606b-7ad4-b529-5891cf509fbf@tundraware.com> <alpine.BSF.2.22.395.2002180821310.6036@enterprise.ximalas.info> <CAEW8WPuirfT-uq2XOBf%2B1w6StXQLEtSpCgAEELL5pLtthk9tog@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Feb 2020, at 05:45, Andreas X <hamdi20193d@gmail.com> wrote: > Question is: If I don't add the rule number 00350 to that command, that > rule gets located to 65000s, and ipfw doesn't block the IPs in table, at > all. I wanted to ask why such react, shouldn't IPFW still do the job (deny) > even if the rule number belongs to last ones? Depends on all the other rules. -- 'You're wizards!' she [Esk] screamed. 'Bloody well wizz!' --Equal Rites
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E909476A-5D91-44A7-9AE1-30BD2A6BC08D>