* Dead mailinglist ??? @ 2009-05-13 11:51 Gáspár Lajos 2009-05-13 12:08 ` Покотиленко Костик 2009-05-13 12:57 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y) 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Gáspár Lajos @ 2009-05-13 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Netfilter list Hi list, I do not receive any mail from this list in the last 7 days.... Is there a problem? Swifty ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Dead mailinglist ??? 2009-05-13 11:51 Dead mailinglist ??? Gáspár Lajos @ 2009-05-13 12:08 ` Покотиленко Костик 2009-05-13 12:57 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y) 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Покотиленко Костик @ 2009-05-13 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gáspár Lajos; +Cc: Netfilter list 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> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Dead mailinglist ??? 2009-05-13 11:51 Dead mailinglist ??? Gáspár Lajos 2009-05-13 12:08 ` Покотиленко Костик @ 2009-05-13 12:57 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y) 2009-05-13 13:08 ` Thomas Jacob 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y) @ 2009-05-13 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netfilter 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Dead mailinglist ??? 2009-05-13 12:57 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y) @ 2009-05-13 13:08 ` Thomas Jacob 2009-05-13 15:49 ` Billy Crook 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Thomas Jacob @ 2009-05-13 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y); +Cc: netfilter 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Dead mailinglist ??? 2009-05-13 13:08 ` Thomas Jacob @ 2009-05-13 15:49 ` Billy Crook 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Billy Crook @ 2009-05-13 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Jacob; +Cc: Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y), netfilter 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-05-13 15:49 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-05-13 11:51 Dead mailinglist ??? Gáspár Lajos 2009-05-13 12:08 ` Покотиленко Костик 2009-05-13 12:57 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y) 2009-05-13 13:08 ` Thomas Jacob 2009-05-13 15:49 ` Billy Crook
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.