From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Feb 18 13:36:44 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699B523974D for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:36:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kremels@kreme.com) Received: from mail.covisp.net (mail.covisp.net [65.121.55.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48MMMb2pPnz3KKW for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:36:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kremels@kreme.com) From: "@lbutlr" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Blacklist IP file for IPFW? Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 06:36:40 -0700 References: <9585fce4-b48d-a210-d62f-a2100c0cf929@tundraware.com> To: FreeBSD In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48MMMb2pPnz3KKW X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kremels@kreme.com designates 65.121.55.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kremels@kreme.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.44 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.98)[-0.977,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[kreme.com]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; IP_SCORE(-0.07)[ip: (-0.24), ipnet: 65.112.0.0/12(-0.00), asn: 209(-0.04), country: US(-0.05)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[42.55.121.65.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:209, ipnet:65.112.0.0/12, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:36:44 -0000 On 18 Feb 2020, at 05:45, Andreas X 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