Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:25:08 -0600
From:      Matthew Pherigo <hybrid120@gmail.com>
To:        Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org>
Cc:        freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Chris Stankevitz <chrisstankevitz@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: /etc/pf.conf missing
Message-ID:  <B8682F04-B4FD-4F36-96AA-508895988C23@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <44h9uvvwkd.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
References:  <CAPi0pss6Sd7VWcDSR6JgSnJjOXVuxBLteL12dqM8KD=kpnBsAg@mail.gmail.com> <44h9uvvwkd.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, it seems to be incorrect there. Instead, it should probably mention the=
 directory at /usr/share/examples/pf/, which contains a complete sample pf.c=
onf, along with some other rulesets for more fringe use cases.

--Matt

> On Feb 9, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-we=
ll.ilk.org> wrote:
>=20
> Chris Stankevitz <chrisstankevitz@gmail.com> writes:
>=20
>> Q: Should I be alarmed?
>>=20
>> Handbook section 30.3.1 says "The default ruleset is already created
>> and is named /etc/pf.conf" but that file does not exist on my hard
>> drive.
>=20
> The Handbook (or at least the obvious interpretation of what it says;
> the awkward phrasing may mean that it was mis-edited at some point) is
> incorrect.=20
>=20
> I'm not sure that a one-size-fits-all default ruleset (of the sort that
> exists for ipfw) is practical for pf.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.or=
g"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B8682F04-B4FD-4F36-96AA-508895988C23>