Shorewall users - Oct 2003 - Re: Shorewall-users Digest, Vol 11, Issue 28

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 10:16 PM 10/9/2003, shorewall-users-request@lists.shorewall.net
wrote:
>Hmm.  I''d feel better if you''d say, "Noted, but
I''m too busy to run the ''mv''
>command once per release so all the downloaders don''t have to worry
about
>file clobbering issues" than just the mysterious "No
comment".
>
>--
>Dan Harkless
>http://harkless.org/dan/

Hello,

Once again THIS IS FREE SOFTWARE ...

Tom has a Day Job .. Shorewall and the support does nothing but help a 
Great Cause ... The Starlight foundation ..

Sorry List .. But Tom Works His Ass Off ..

Appreciation and the above charity is all he asks FOR

Lady Linux


"No Problems Only Solutions"
Francesca C. Smith
Lady Linux Internet Services
fsmith@ladylinux.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP4Yf5G9MXAhl3ducEQKopgCeK+K/wlinVHRKh4C4p5nX2xtnT84An0Ko
4USogqw0pwPw+CQya/7aU4QW
=vE9+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On October 9, 2003, Francesca C Smith <fsmith@ladylinux.com>
wrote:
> >Hmm.  I''d feel better if you''d say, "Noted, but
I''m too busy to run the ''mv''
> >command once per release so all the downloaders don''t have to
worry about
> >file clobbering issues" than just the mysterious "No
comment".
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Once again THIS IS FREE SOFTWARE ...
I''m well aware of that.  I''ve released quite a bit of free
software myself:

    http://harkless.org/dan/software/

but I''ve never answered a support request from one of my users with a
dismissive "No comment."

If Tom is too busy to do the ''mv'' command, so be it.  More
power to him.  If
that''s the case, though, it''s probably best to say that.  Just
saying "No
comment" leaves open the possibility that he didn''t understand
one''s
argument, encouraging further (pointless, if he''s already made up his
mind
that he''s too busy) discussion.

--
Dan Harkless
http://harkless.org/dan/

Hey Dan,
    Cool your''e Jets, Don''t bite the hand that feeds you,
Just my advice. I think anyone might get irritated with thousands of
questions over the years on shorewall.

Mike
 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Harkless" <shorewall-users@harkless.org>
To: "Shorewall Users Mailing List"
<shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] Re: Shorewall-users Digest, Vol 11, Issue 28

>
> On October 9, 2003, Francesca C Smith <fsmith@ladylinux.com> wrote:
> > >Hmm.  I''d feel better if you''d say, "Noted,
but I''m too busy to run the
''mv''
> > >command once per release so all the downloaders don''t
have to worry
about
> > >file clobbering issues" than just the mysterious "No
comment".
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Once again THIS IS FREE SOFTWARE ...
>
> I''m well aware of that.  I''ve released quite a bit of
free software
myself:
>
>     http://harkless.org/dan/software/
>
> but I''ve never answered a support request from one of my users
with a
> dismissive "No comment."
>
> If Tom is too busy to do the ''mv'' command, so be it. 
More power to him.
If
> that''s the case, though, it''s probably best to say that. 
Just saying "No
> comment" leaves open the possibility that he didn''t
understand one''s
> argument, encouraging further (pointless, if he''s already made up
his mind
> that he''s too busy) discussion.
>
> --
> Dan Harkless
> http://harkless.org/dan/
> _______________________________________________
> Shorewall-users mailing list
> Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users
> Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm
> FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
>

On October 10, 2003, "Mike Lander"
<landers@lanlinecomputers.com> wrote:
> Hey Dan,
>     Cool your''e Jets, 
My''e Jets are perfectly cool, thank you.
> Don''t bite the hand that feeds you,
I''m not biting anything.
> Just my advice. I think anyone might get irritated with thousands of
> questions over the years on shorewall.
Indeed.  Still smarts when you get dumped to the ground because you happen
to be the straw that broke the camel''s back, though.

Anyway, I played some more with the accounting stuff, and got a setup along
the lines I mentioned I was shooting for, and it seemed to work.  Did
something like this (I have to reconstruct it from memory, for reasons
I''ll
mention in a second):

  #ACTION	CHAIN	SOURCE	DEST	PROT	DEST 	SOURCE
  #						PORT	PORT
  http:COUNT	-	eth0	-	tcp	80
  http:COUNT	-	-	eth0	tcp	-	80
  http:COUNT	-	eth0	-	tcp	443
  http:COUNT	-	-	eth0	tcp	-	443
  DONE		web
  smtp:COUNT	-	eth0	-	tcp	80
  smtp:COUNT	-	-	eth0	tcp	-	80
  smtp:COUNT	-	eth0	-	tcp	465
  smtp:COUNT	-	-	eth0	tcp	-	465
  DONE		smtp
  all:COUNT	-	-	-	tcp	-	-
  DONE		all

Not sure if there are any performance (or integer overflow?) implications to
counting all traffic (well, I guess not _all_ traffic, as traffic from the
server to itself doesn''t show up in the counts, as I mentioned in
another
mail), but it seemed to work fine.  I still don''t understand why the
source
and dest ports need to be specified backwards from what one would (at least
naively) think, though.  Hopefully Tom will be able to touch on that when he
next makes a swipe at the documentation.

But while the accounting stuff seemed to be working fine, I then happened to
run ''shorewall status'', and this crashed my machine. 
I''ve determined this
has nothing to do with accounting, so I''ll start a new thread with an
appropriate subject.

--
Dan Harkless
http://harkless.org/dan/