In helping a user on IRC today, I was dismayed to find that a bug that
was supposedly fixed in Shorewall 3.4.4 was not fixed. Furthermore, I
found that the bug is present as far back as 3.2.6 (I didn't look back
further since 3.2.6 was the release where the user (re-) discovered the
bug.
If HIGH_R
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:24:49 am Tom Eastep wrote:
> In helping a user on IRC today, I was dismayed to find that a bug that
> was supposedly fixed in Shorewall 3.4.4 was not fixed. Furthermore, I
> found that the bug is present as far back as 3.2.6 (I didn't look back
> further since 3.2.6 was the r
James Gray wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:24:49 am Tom Eastep wrote:
>> In helping a user on IRC today, I was dismayed to find that a bug that
>> was supposedly fixed in Shorewall 3.4.4 was not fixed. Furthermore, I
>> found that the bug is present as far back as 3.2.6 (I didn't look back
>> furth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Gray wrote:
> Thanks for the patches Tom. Are you releasing a new 3.4? Just curious as it
> would make my version-management easier than rolling my own (patched) RPM.
> Furthermore, the behaviour described seems to reflect the battles I've
Tuomo Soini wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> James Gray wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the patches Tom. Are you releasing a new 3.4? Just curious as
>> it
>> would make my version-management easier than rolling my own (patched) RPM.
>> Furthermore, the behaviour describe
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote:
>
>
> "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even
> give me 15 minutes of downtime on a weekend :P
>
If your management demands that level of up-time then they surely must
provide you with one or more test firewall
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 07:36:14PM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even
> > give me 15 minutes of downtime on a weekend :P
> >
>
> If your management demands that lev
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:51:52PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 07:36:14PM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote:
> > > "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even
> > > give me 15 minutes of downtim
Tom Eastep wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote:
>
>>
>> "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even
>> give me 15 minutes of downtime on a weekend :P
>>
>
> If your management demands that level of up-time then they surely must
> provide you wit
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:51:52PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 07:36:14PM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote:
"Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even
give
James Gray wrote:
> not necessarily "expectantly" either). The technology isn't necessarily
I meant "UNexpectantly" of course. (It's been a long day).
--
James
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepp
11 matches
Mail list logo