[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       netfilter
Subject:    Re: Re[2]: access to server
From:       Arnt Karlsen <arnt () c2i ! net>
Date:       2003-04-30 2:47:45
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 03:38:12 +0200, 
netfilter_user <netfilter_user@o2.pl> wrote in message 
<1246491441.20030430033812@o2.pl>:

> Hello Arnt,
> 
> Wednesday, April 30, 2003, 3:10:30 AM, you wrote:
> 
> AK> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:49:31 +0200, 
> AK> netfilter_user <netfilter_user@o2.pl> wrote in message 
> AK> <5436369716.20030430004931@o2.pl>:
> 
> >> Rule: "iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p udp -m --multioport --dport 
> AK>                                                      /\
> AK> ..is " -m --multioport " a valid match in iptables, or a correct 
> AK> quote of your attempt to write  ' -m --multiport ' ?
> 
> damn my wrong...it should looks like this:
> iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p udp -m --multioport --dport 23073,23083
> -j ACCEPT                                   /\
                                              ||
..lets try again: I don't find "-m --multioport" _anywhere_ 
in the docs, so, if you _actually_ try '-m --multioport' in
your rule set, it _should_ fail, then you'll wanna try 
'-m --multiport', without your extra "o".  ;-)

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]