Dead mailinglist ???

Dead mailinglist ???

[Gáspár Lajos]

Hi list,

I do not receive any mail from this list in the last 7 days....
Is there a problem?

Swifty

Re: Dead mailinglist ???

[Покотиленко Костик]

В Срд, 13/05/2009 в 13:51 +0200, Gáspár Lajos пишет:
> Hi list,
> 
> I do not receive any mail from this list in the last 7 days....
> Is there a problem?

Last I've got is dated yesterday. Local problems?

-- 
Покотиленко Костик <casper@meteor.dp.ua>

Re: Dead mailinglist ???

[Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y)]

On 05/13/2009 02:51 PM, Gáspár Lajos wrote:
> I do not receive any mail from this list in the last 7 days....

Last message for me is May 10th

> Is there a problem?

Iptables rules became user friendly! ;-)

-- 
                              Chef de projet chez Vectoris
                                  Phone: +261 33 11 207 36
System: xUbuntu 8.10 with almost all from package install
    http://www.google.com/search?q=mihamina+rakotomandimby

Re: Dead mailinglist ???

[Thomas Jacob]

On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 15:57 +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y) wrote:
> > Is there a problem?
> 
> Iptables rules became user friendly! ;-)

I cannot leave that unreplied. I'd really like to know of a system which
offers the same or better fine grained control and so many features
which is significantly more user friendly than iptables ;-)

The complexity of iptables stems for the most part from the complexity
of the problem at hand. Sure you can hide that complexity behind fancy
web front ends and there are plenty of those for iptables, in fact, the
firewall configurations in many consumer router boxes today are just
that.

But doing this also takes away most of the power of iptables or indeed
any other sophisticated firewalling system, and being reduced to that
would be a terrible thing for me at least ;)

In summary, iptables is appropriately user friendly for its feature set,
and if you don't need most of that feature set, simply use a front end
instead.

     Thomas

Re: Dead mailinglist ???

[Billy Crook]

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:08, Thomas Jacob <jacob@internet24.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 15:57 +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y) wrote:
>> > Is there a problem?
>>
>> Iptables rules became user friendly! ;-)
>
> I cannot leave that unreplied. I'd really like to know of a system which
> offers the same or better fine grained control and so many features
> which is significantly more user friendly than iptables ;-)
>
> The complexity of iptables stems for the most part from the complexity
> of the problem at hand. Sure you can hide that complexity behind fancy
> web front ends and there are plenty of those for iptables, in fact, the
> firewall configurations in many consumer router boxes today are just
> that.
>
> But doing this also takes away most of the power of iptables or indeed
> any other sophisticated firewalling system, and being reduced to that
> would be a terrible thing for me at least ;)
>
> In summary, iptables is appropriately user friendly for its feature set,
> and if you don't need most of that feature set, simply use a front end
> instead.
>
>     Thomas

Agreed.  It's just lists of if-match-then-act rules.  iptables is
already quite easy and simple.  How could it be any simpler?  I can
imagine very little that one could remove or change without reducing
functionality.  A good example would be -j REJECT in -t nat, and
that's already been resolved.  It might be nice to merge ip and eb,
and as I understand, that work is already under way.