Ken Gunderson a écrit :
Hello:
I've been using pf a long while now - since before it featured
"tables". Out of habit I mostly define things using lists, and reserve
tables for really large things like spamd, bogons, and things that I
need to change/update on the fly. More recently I'm wonderin
Ken Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been using pf a long while now - since before it featured
> "tables". Out of habit I mostly define things using lists, and reserve
> tables for really large things like spamd, bogons, and things that I
> need to change/update on the fly. More rece
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:37:57 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter N. M. Hansteen) wrote:
> Ken Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are there any reasons to prefer lists over tables (or vice versa)
> > for the smaller sized stuff, e.g. /29 - /26 subnets? Any comments
> > about when should one n
Ken Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are there any reasons to prefer lists over tables (or vice versa)
> for the smaller sized stuff, e.g. /29 - /26 subnets? Any comments
> about when should one not use tables?
Tables are exclusively for addresses, and pfctl has quite a few
options which
Hello:
I've been using pf a long while now - since before it featured
"tables". Out of habit I mostly define things using lists, and reserve
tables for really large things like spamd, bogons, and things that I
need to change/update on the fly. More recently I'm wondering if
tables shouldn't be u
