similar to: Looking for Volunteers to Moderate the User''s List

As mentioned three days ago, the R-help mailing list is now only accepting postings from subscribers (more or less) unconditionally. Non-subscriber postings are currently held for moderation which we would like to "out source". To this end, we look for volunteers who are willing to share the load (I estimate about 10 minutes a day in total). One possibility would be to have a moderator

--lHuqAdgBYNjQz/wy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! Since netfilter/iptables is a volunteer based effort, the project lives by more participation and involvement of it's user community. While we receive lots of code contributions (new matches/targets, patches, bugfixes, ...), there is lots of work in

Simon Matter has graciously volunteered to provide RPMs taylored for Redhat and Fedora. You can download Simon''s RPMs from http://www.invoca.ch/pub/packages/shorewall/ Thanks, Simon! -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \

The 2.6 kernel series includes Netfilter ''physdev'' match support. That support makes it feasible for Shorewall to support bridge/firewall configurations. I''m looking for early testers of such support. Requirements: a) Willing to run Shorewall 2.0.0-RC1 or later (RC1 will be released in a day or so) plus private updates. b) Running a 2.6 kernel or a 2.4 kernel with

For several years, this list has been moderated for non-member posts. I''ve found that this is a pain for me (I have to wade through the spam to find and approve legitimate posts). Additionally, non-members seem to almost universally ignore instructions to mention that they are non-members in their post. Since the mailing list is set up so that replies go to the list rather than to the

I'm still in need for moderators for the following sessions: > Moderator #3 (11:15-12:45, Regency 1) > Verified LLVM: Formalizing the semantics of the LLVM Intermediate Representation for Verified Program Transformations- Santosh Nagarakatte, University of Pennsylvania/Rutgers University > Integrated Security, using LLVM for Dynamic and Static Security Tasks- Jared Carlson,

My apologies if a message containing this virus made it out to the list -- the list received a flood of these just before a Vexira VDF update was available. I believe that all of them were quarantined as Spam but one may have slipped through. It is difficult for me to tell because one instance apparently had a forged envelope sender address of <shorewall-users@shorewall.net> so the list

Hello, I am in need of moderators to help moderate each session. If you are interested, please respond to this mail and indicate which slot you can moderate. Its a long shot as you would miss talks, but if anyone wants a break to do work or check email while also staffing the registration desk, please let me know if you can do it during any of the sessions below. Thanks! Options: Moderator #1

FYI... ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: RE: [Shorewall-users] 2.6 kernel ipsec and shorewall Date: Thursday 23 September 2004 07:44 From: "Jonathan Schneider" <jon@clearconcepts.ca> To: "''Tom Eastep''" <teastep@shorewall.net> I must have been up too late working on this, looking at it the next day I noticed I completely forgot

FYI This bug will prevent ''shorewall restore'' from working if you have "!<single IP address>" in the ORIGINAL DEST column. -Tom ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: [PATCH] Another iptables-save buglet Date: Wednesday 14 September 2005 15:09 From: Tom Eastep <teastep@shorewall.net> To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org The conntrack

From https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/26 : > Unfortunately I have only this UPS for testing purposes right now. It might makes sense to ask people on the nut mailinglist if they can send the result nut-scanner -qU if they have the same APC UPS. If you have a USB-based APC UPS, could you please send the list the output from "nut-scanner -qU"? You can remove the serial

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2-Beta/shorewall-2.2.0-Beta2 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2-Beta/shorewall-2.2.0-Beta2 Problems Corrected: 1. The "shorewall check" command results in the (harmless) error message: /usr/share/shorewall/firewall: line 2753: check_dupliate_zones: command not found 2. The

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2-Beta/shorewall-2.2.0-Beta2 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2-Beta/shorewall-2.2.0-Beta2 Problems Corrected: 1. The "shorewall check" command results in the (harmless) error message: /usr/share/shorewall/firewall: line 2753: check_dupliate_zones: command not found 2. The

Hi all, I would really appreciate it if someone would be willing to deal with the messages to the list that get set out for moderation. Most of them are just round file material, but occationally real messages get stuck. Also, if someone would be willing to give the documentation and web pages a very much needed facelift, that would be super. I'm honestly thinking about hiring a tech

Hi I have 2nic firewall . I had to open some ranges of udp and tcp ports . I faced a problem that although all the ports are open Some functionality was not working . Any body used shorewall with H323 Voip traffic DNATed . Any help is appretiated . Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: <shorewall-users-request@lists.shorewall.net> To: <shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net> Sent:

I just posted a follow-up to our bug that old SWIG versions are not properly detected, leading to unclear failure messages: --- Actually, this just got a lot simpler. We used to support both 1.3.25+ and 1.3.24-, so we had to do both kinds of detection. Now, we REQUIRE 1.3.29, and therefore any SWIG that can''t give us its version number the new way is automatically too old. We can get

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As I pointed out to Wilson in a private message, this appears to show that no other connection requests (other than port 3000) are being sent from the client to the server (or at least no other connection requests are being received by the Shorewall box). Wilson: Are you sure that the client is supposed to open port 3001 on the server and not the

I have created the shorewall-newbies@lists.shorewall.net mailing list and am now soliciting volunteers to be moderators. Please CC me as I am currently not subscribed to shorewall-users. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net

Thanks for such a quick reply Tom! Any suggestions then as to what I might do other than putting a second nic in the SBS and opening it up for web access? I don''t like the idea, but since MS SBS includes fireall that is actually what MS suggests. Boyd -----Original Message----- From: Tom Eastep [mailto:teastep@shorewall.net] Sent: January 3, 2005 3:05 PM To: Shorewall Users Cc: Boyd

FYI -- A small blurb on page 45. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Shorewall in (IN)SECURE Magazine Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:10:51 +0200 From: Mirko Zorz <mirko.zorz@net-security.org> To: teastep@shorewall.net Hello Tom, I thought you would be interested to know that Shorewall has been featured in the Software Spotlight section of the third issue of (IN)SECURE, a free security