Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:52:00 +1300 From: Andrew Thompson <andy@fud.org.nz> To: kientzle@acm.org Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/pf/net if_pflog.c if_pflog.hif_pfsync.c src/sys/contrib/pf/netinet in4_cksum.c Message-ID: <20040226225200.GB28986@kate.fud.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <403E75F1.2070302@kientzle.com> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040226150526.79901Y-100000@fledge.watson.org> <403E75F1.2070302@kientzle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:40:49PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > >>>Choice is good. Three firewalls is maybe pushing the limit, but these > >>>three are Very Important to our community. > > Dunno about pf, but neither ipfw nor ipf have one > feature I've been looking for. I'd like to be able > to say something like: > > create set BLACKLIST > drop ip in BLACKLIST FWIW, pf implements this with tables. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/tables.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040226225200.GB28986>