Hi !
There is a bug (?) in the schedules...
Define one time range and add it to the schedule, then save.
After that, edit the schedule and delete the time range and add another
one (as you would do for an other event with the same rules on another
date...)
When hitting save pfsense tells you
Hi,
do you have the latest snapshot?
Greetings
heiko
Fuchs, Martin schrieb:
Hi !
There is a bug (?) in the schedules...
Define one time range and add it to the schedule, then save.
After that, edit the schedule and delete the time range and add another
one (as you would do for an other event
Can you be more specific with your testing? I am unable to duplicate.
Were you creating single day schedules or repeating? What time range?
Were the description boxes filled in? etc
Thanks,
Scott Dale
Fuchs, Martin wrote:
Hi !
There is a bug (?) in the schedules...
Define one time range
Ok Sir! So, i will retest!
Fuchs, Martin schrieb:
Standard question ;-)
Yes, sir :-)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Heiko Garbe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 6. Mai 2007 21:51
An: support@pfsense.com
Betreff: Re: [pfSense Support] Schedules bug
Hi,
do you have the
Hi,
also, i cannot duplicate your test. Please describe a litte bit more the
bug. Screenshots and anything else would be helpful
The german irc is on freenode #pfsensede
Greetings
heiko
Fuchs, Martin schrieb:
Standard question ;-)
Yes, sir :-)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von:
As usual, I installed the newest 1.2-BETA-1 and
found it to work great for my purposes. I have
come up against a question from several clients
that are now using pfS ...
Is/are there any plans for a session/cookie expire
button/menu item? I have found that there are
cases where someone has been
This will appear in a version past 1.2, most likely 1.3.
Holger
-Original Message-
From: David Strout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:42 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] cookie/session expire
As usual, I installed the newest 1.2-BETA-1 and
This was committed to the RELENG_1 branch (sponsored by two different
entities) right after the branch point for 1.2 and will be in our next
release after 1.2.
--Bill
On 5/6/07, David Strout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As usual, I installed the newest 1.2-BETA-1 and
found it to work great for my
On 5/5/07, Daniel Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are the rules generated by miniupnpd supposed to bypass traffic shaping?
After a few weeks of bashing my head against pftop and pfctl trying to
figure out why one client was able to completely bypass all traffic shaping,
I disabled miniupnpd,
Move the servers to an OPT interface - I believe that will work. The
way the port forwards (rdr in pf terminology) works it can't change
the destination address/port for a packet and send it back out the
same interface.
--Bill
On 5/5/07, Matthias Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Scott
10 matches
Mail list logo