Jon,
Yes I am running courier, but the problem turned out to be unrelated
to the MAXPERIP setting. I was finally able to see what was happening
via iptables logging to the screen (I couldn't get it to log this
particular drop to a file for some reason) and fixed the issue by
re-writing my firewall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, November 8, 2005 12:19, J. Chieppa wrote:
> My understanding of iptables was it read top to bottom and you could
> either specify a default policy or the $iptables -A INPUT -j drop at the
> last line. To see if it would make any difference I r
My understanding of iptables was it read top to bottom and you could either
specify a default policy or the $iptables -A INPUT -j drop at the last line.
To see if it would make any difference I removed the last line and instead
specified a default policy of drop for all incoming packets then lef
On Saturday 05 November 2005 12:16 pm, Jonathan Angliss wrote:
> From my understanding it reads them top to bottom as you have put them...
That is controlled by the "-A" parameter versus the "-I".
David
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, November 5, 2005 00:31, J. Craig Woods wrote:
> After becoming spoiled by hardware firewall, i.e. router, I think I
> remember something about IPTABLES. The logic in iptables' rules are most
> restrictive rules should go first with exception r
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:squirrelmail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. Chieppa
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:03 PM
> To: squirrelmail-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [SM-USERS] Squirrelmail + iptables conflict
>
> I
After becoming spoiled by hardware firewall, i.e. router, I think I
remember something about IPTABLES. The logic in iptables' rules are most
restrictive rules should go first with exception rules going next.
IPTABLES reads and sets from first to last rules. This might be where your
getting stung...
I'm having an interesting problem with squirrelmail and my basic
iptables firewall (posted at the bottom of the message). The issue
seems to be limited to the final line of the firewall which tells it
to drop everything not already allowed. With that line present, even
though I've allowed port 14
