> From: Henning Brauer (lists-openbsdbsws.de)
> Date: Sun Dec 02 2007 - 14:45:37 CST
>
> * MikeM [2007-12-02 15:35]:
> >
> > When I run the command
> >
> > pfctl -sr
> >
> > a list of the rules is displayed, a sample line is below.
> >
> > pass in log quick on fxp0 inet proto tcp from 226.174.167
On 12/4/2007 at 6:53 PM Henning Brauer wrote:
|actually, if I were to implement these parts now I'd make it print
port
|numbers only and not names
=
That's what I plan to do when I change the code.I don't need the
command line option part because I have never needed the name i
On 06:12:09 Dec 05, Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
>
> If there is enough coffee for me in the list, I would do it. ;)
>
This diff should satisfy everyone.
-Girish
Index: pfctl_parser.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/pfctl/pfctl_parser.c
On 13:22:23 Dec 05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A longer winded version (same idea - Perl ... and no prizes for my code)
>
> use warnings;
> use strict;
>
> # Get the rules
> my $pfctl_rules=`pfctl -s rules`;
>
> # Get the known services
> open(SERVICES," my (@services)=;
>
> # Pull out the TCP
On 23:44:31 Dec 04, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> *seriously* unsupported:
>
> $ perl -pi -e s,etc/services,etc/sXrvices, < /sbin/pfctl >
> ~/bin/pfctl-no-service-names
>
> your foot is
>
> :
>
> :
>
> :
>
> V
>
> this way
Wow ;)
I never imagined one cud get so devious with programming. Ha h
Quoting Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> *seriously* unsupported:
>
> $ perl -pi -e s,etc/services,etc/sXrvices, < /sbin/pfctl >
> ~/bin/pfctl-no-service-names
>
> your foot is
>
> :
>
> :
>
> :
>
> V
>
> this way
>
A longer winded version (same idea - Perl ... and no prizes for
*seriously* unsupported:
$ perl -pi -e s,etc/services,etc/sXrvices, < /sbin/pfctl >
~/bin/pfctl-no-service-names
your foot is
:
:
:
V
this way
On 11:06:09 Dec 04, Bob Beck wrote:
> Personally, I think if I were starting from square one, I'd
> do port numbers, not service names, but that's not the way it's
> been for many years and even though my preference would be numbers
> my loathing for yet another option far outweighs this pref
On 18:08:13 Dec 04, frantisek holop wrote:
>
> shouting? are you serious?
>
I am rarely if ever serious. ;)
-Girish
> while that is entirely true, I really don't see much of a point here.
> actually, if I were to implement these parts now I'd make it print port
> numbers only and not names - we don't print hostnames either.
> but - it has been that way for more than 6 years. I don't see a good
> reason to chan
* frantisek holop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-04 18:15]:
> > If it is a no , it is a no. I later realized that nobody can satisfy
> > everyone's needs and it is impossible to ever get total buy in in
> > anything. We have to respect the developer's decisions.
>
> Henning has not used the word "no
hmm, on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:47:17PM +0530, Girish Venkatachalam said that
> On 14:45:41 Dec 04, frantisek holop wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > one man's worthless feature is other man's best friend.
> > please put it in...
>
> No use shouting yourself hoarse over this.
shouting? are you serious?
On 14:45:41 Dec 04, frantisek holop wrote:
> +1
>
> one man's worthless feature is other man's best friend.
> please put it in...
No use shouting yourself hoarse over this.
If it is a no , it is a no. I later realized that nobody can satisfy
everyone's needs and it is impossible to ever get to
hmm, on Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:24:05PM -0500, MikeM said that
> toggle between symbols and numbers (e.g., -n for netstat or tcpdump) it
> may be helpful as well. That's the main reason why I originally though
+1
one man's worthless feature is other man's best friend.
please put it in...
-f
--
Although that solution will make upgrading more difficult without the
change being made in-tree (you'll have to rebuild pfctl after each
upgrade).
On Dec 3, 2007 1:24 PM, MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/3/2007 at 7:06 PM Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> |* MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-03 1
On 12/3/2007 at 7:06 PM Henning Brauer wrote:
|* MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-03 14:53]:
|> On 12/3/2007 at 7:32 AM Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
|> |> > Is there a way for me to tell pfctl that I want to see
|> |> >
|> |> > port = 25
|> |> >
|> |> > instead of
|> |> >
|> |> > port = sm
* MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-03 14:53]:
> On 12/3/2007 at 7:32 AM Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
> |> > Is there a way for me to tell pfctl that I want to see
> |> >
> |> > port = 25
> |> >
> |> > instead of
> |> >
> |> > port = smtp
> |> >
> |> > ?
> |>
> |> short of hacking pfctl so
On 12/3/2007 at 7:32 AM Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
|On 21:45:37 Dec 02, Henning Brauer wrote:
|> * MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-02 15:35]:
|> > When I run the command
|> >
|> > pfctl -sr
|> >
|> > a list of the rules is displayed, a sample line is below.
|> >
|> > pass in log quick on
On 21:45:37 Dec 02, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-02 15:35]:
> > When I run the command
> >
> > pfctl -sr
> >
> > a list of the rules is displayed, a sample line is below.
> >
> > pass in log quick on fxp0 inet proto tcp from 226.174.167.164 to
> > (fxp0) port =
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:45:37PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-02 15:35]:
> short of hacking pfctl source, no.
Moving /etc/services elsewhere worked for me. Unforeseen consequences
are the reader's responsibility...
--
Jussi Peltola
* MikeM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-02 15:35]:
> When I run the command
>
> pfctl -sr
>
> a list of the rules is displayed, a sample line is below.
>
> pass in log quick on fxp0 inet proto tcp from 226.174.167.164 to
> (fxp0) port = smtp flags S/FSRA keep state
>
>
> Is there a way for me
When I run the command
pfctl -sr
a list of the rules is displayed, a sample line is below.
pass in log quick on fxp0 inet proto tcp from 226.174.167.164 to
(fxp0) port = smtp flags S/FSRA keep state
Is there a way for me to tell pfctl that I want to see
port = 25
instead of
port = sm
22 matches
Mail list logo
