From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 3 18:52:56 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA77816A41F; Sun, 3 Jun 2007 18:52:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.183]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F77F13C45E; Sun, 3 Jun 2007 18:52:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from [88.66.48.230] (helo=amd64.laiers.local) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKwtQ-1HuvBa3Hwe-0003IY; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:52:19 +0200 From: Max Laier Organization: FreeBSD To: Gergely CZUCZY Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:52:03 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <20070601103549.GA22490@localhost.localdomain> <4662E18E.6010404@delphij.net> <20070603161633.GA32255@harmless.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070603161633.GA32255@harmless.hu> X-Face: ,,8R(x[kmU]tKN@>gtH1yQE4aslGdu+2]; R]*pL,U>^H?)gW@49@wdJ`H<=?utf-8?q?=25=7D*=5FBD=0A=09U=5For=3D=5CmOZf764=26nYj=3DJYbR1PW0ud?=>|!~,,CPC.1-D$FG@0h3#'5"k{V]a~.<=?utf-8?q?mZ=7D44=23Se=7Em=0A=09Fe=7E=5C=5DX5B=5D=5Fxj?=(ykz9QKMw_l0C2AQ]}Ym8)fU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1470510.dkmkTBrb1h"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200706032052.12077.max@love2party.net> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+m+DAMAkhOo1Eqxrn52D4HA/JbYRYejpAVA4r nW/x+fGhcXseiKs68tmz0jAKwsHy0QloGOkJWgDEeCoxvT/bQy w5J5c0Yo2wNOAyi5GzTIg== Cc: Michal Mertl , LI Xin , freebsd-pf@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:52:57 -0000 --nextPart1470510.dkmkTBrb1h Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 03 June 2007, Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:43:10PM +0800, LI Xin wrote: > > Max Laier wrote: > > [...] > > > > > How do people feel about removing ftp-proxy from the base > > > altogether? I think it's better off in ports anyway. Opinions? > > I would vote for including pftpx (the newer version in OpenBSD) iirc. > Almost a year ago I've made an ftp service where the ftpd was jailed to > a local IP address, and i had to use ftp-proxy for this propose. This > reverse-proxying stuff couldn't be achived with the ftp-proxy in > base, so i had to use the later version, which has the name pftpx > in the ports tree. I'd vote for replacing ftp-proxy with pftpx. Okay, but why? Is there any reason you can't use pftpx (or the newer=20 version of ftp-proxy) from the ports tree? Why does ftp-proxy have to be=20 in base? =2D-=20 /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News --nextPart1470510.dkmkTBrb1h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBGYw3cXyyEoT62BG0RAst3AJ9uJty0UNWIWjv/Ln7ZYyRmxPm+qwCeIJZk 58AkakQ6ECJbAx3QI4EnlcI= =Z0Ug -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1470510.dkmkTBrb1h--