similar to: FW: Mailing list email masquerading.

Why mailing list info was changed and no information about Senders email address in available anymore? Is this fight with spammers? It means from this moment, if we want to reply someone off-topic/off-list we can't do it, because we don't see Sender's email address, only name of person and we only possible way to do it , via mailing list. Thanks, Alexander E-Mail:

Hello all, Last couple weeks we had a lot of business discussions on mailing list, however some people don't like it, some people don't needed it, etc. I had couple discussions with Asterisk community members, who is interested to have business discussions about Asterisk, including but not limited to : business implementations, reselling , Asterisk commercial packages, IP phones,

Hello all, Our Asterisk unofficial online forums (http://asterisk.xvoip.com) are moving forward and are alive. Thanks to all Asterisk guru's who helped to achieve it. Everyday more and more new members are joining this community, however not everyone is using mailing list or knows how to use IRC, this is why they are coming to web-based forums. We believe that together with Digiums

well, asterisk unofficial forums are online since Nov 2003. http://asterisk.xvoip.com We have 500 registered members as of today and forum is alive. About 1000 uniqe visitors are hiting forum everyday. We will post link to your forums to provide users with more info. http://asterisk.xvoip.com I agree, the Wiki is Step #1 for any Asterisk user. The Wiki is a great reference, but you

Howdy, I tried tackling this on irc with Ivo, but I suspect that irc may really not be the best medium for technical discussions, so I'll reprise it here. I am trying to duplicate the "tinc from behind a masquerading firewall" example from the tinc web site: (home) <--> (masquerading firewall) <--> (office) 192.168.1.21 192.168.1.1/1.2.3.4

hi, I am using shorewall 2.0.14 on debian and it is working but for a small problem. I want to allow masquerading only for a few ips in the network to some certain site for ftp, ssh etc. Masquerading will be blocked for other users amd they will access internet thru proxy server. How can I do this ? thanks. wrodrigues. Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52 Summary: masquerading not working with iproute2 Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: i386 OS/Version: RedHat Linux Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P2 Component: NAT AssignedTo: laforge@netfilter.org

Hi Daniel and Laine, [...] >> -A POSTROUTING -o br0 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o enp0s25 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o virbr2_nic -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o vnet0 -j MASQUERADE > > *None* of those rules were added by libvirt (unless your build of [...] > You can verify my "counter-claim" by running "virsh net-destroy" for all

Re: Per the discussions about spam on this list. Sending a confirming message to an unregistered poster is not a good idea. The return/reply-to addresses in spam is forged, and that is just adding to some victims e-mail. Filtering runs the risk that a legitimate message gets lost, and the sender does not realize it. Filtering is also the most expensive and innefficient way to deal with

Hi all. I have a NAT problem. I have read FAQs and a lot of masquerading docs, but this seems such a simple problem, that I guess noone else will consider this a problem... This is my setup: shorewall version 1.4.6.c uname -a Linux server 2.4.21-0.13mdksecure #1 SMP [root@server shorewall]# ip addr show 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00

On 6/28/19 10:23 AM, Nikolai Zhubr wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts > going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get > broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's > nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). > > At the moment

Hello Everyone! I am using shorewall-3.0.5 on suse linux. Recently we have implemented dansguardian running on 8080 and squid on port 3128. Previously (before dans guardian) masquerading was working fine but after the implementation of dansguardian masquerading is not working. My rules file has entry Previous entry was ACCEPT loc:192.192.192.3 net REDIRECT loc 8080 tcp

I have to restart my shorewall manually everynow & then cos my masquerading will failed and terminal inside my lan will not have access to the internet. Anyone know why? I''m using mandrake 10, shorewall 2.08, iptables 1.2.9. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1448 Bug ID: 1448 Summary: SNAT/DNAT/Masquerading not working for UDPLite protocol Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: NAT

Hi all, and thx for all previous repplies to my questions!!! Here is another one bit trouble: is it possible maintain commark information after that a packet crossed the forwarding chain with masquerading? Best wishes, Diego -- Diego Giardinetto Skype Name: cpuzorro MSN: cpuoverload@hotmail.it

Hi, The private adresses (192.168.254.0/255.255.255.0) of my network are sent dynamically by dhcp on my network. The dhcp server is on the firewall which address is 192.168.254.1/255.255.255.255 (this address is static). I''ve got a rsync server on this network which is on a separe server. His address is 192.168.254.200/255.255.255.255 (this address is static). I want that the users

Hello! I've setup tinc almost succesfully, but there is one problem remaining with a routing issue. Short Description of the situation : Workstation A (192.168.1.3) | | Tinc Host "50K" (192.168.1.1) | | <Unknown Firewall> + + + <Masq Firewall (Linux)> and Tinc Host "oeoe" (192.168.2.1) | | Workstation B

Did anyone here use the * forums over at asterisk.xvoip.com? I've been unable to connect for a few days now and was wondering if anyone knew if they're down for good. It'd be a shame if they are since * newbs like me need every resource we can find. Joel Moore

Following Situation: Having an intranet-application that needs to know the ip-Address of the clients before running. Clients anywere in the Internet with any ip-address. So I thought about using masquerading the opposite way than normal. But then anybody could use this application. Dos anybody know how to make it a little bit more secure, like proofing the mac-address of the client, or something

Hi all, I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). At the moment I'm running a quite outdated version 1.2.9 of libvirt, but other than this issue,