pf(4) status in 7.0-R

Max Laier max at
Sun Jun 3 18:52:57 UTC 2007

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 
version of ftp-proxy) from the ports tree?  Why does ftp-proxy have to be 
in base?

/"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier at
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X  | mlaier at EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list