Whats your email setup? Do you have exchange, pop or Imap server?

I personally use Exchange and i havent had this problem.

We can't do either of those, SMF doesn't offer a means of doing so. At least short of manually changing the database which we're not going to do. We can delete one account so that name could be used under a different account, though users can delete their own accounts and we've never done that for anyone.

sure you can add nics to your pc..  Then sure use those as network segments - you can put in as many nics as your pc will handle.  I have currently 4 assigned to my vm of pfsense.  wan, lan, wlan and dmz.

I just run an AP off my wlan segment..  Just never saw the point of using a wireless card in the router as your AP.  Just use a normal AP or wireless router as AP and connect it to that network segment.  Pfsense and wireless not a good fit of as of yet from everything read on the forums.

wireless cards normally don't make good AccessPoints anyway.

Those instructions look good. To let some systems "out" to use another external DNS server/s:

Add an alias "ExternalDNSallowed" (or some such name). Add all the LAN IP addresses of systems that are allowed to use an external DNS directly. Add an alias "PermittedDNSservers" (or some such name). Add the IP addresses of external DNS servers you allow to be used (e.g. 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) Add a firewall rule on LAN permitting IPv4, TCP+UDP, source "ExternalDNSallowed", destination "PermittedDNSservers", port 53. Move the rule up before the wildcard rule that blocks everything to port 53.

Hello again,

After thinking a bit more (should have done that before), I found the solution: I added an outbound NAT mapping to NAT source IP network 10.60.0.0/16 to the public virtual IP.

The reason is that when I ping 8.8.8.8 using the WAN1 interface, pfSense uses the WAN1 private IP as its source IP.
However, there was no NAT mapping this IP to the public IP.

So, I understand that the pfSense box (always?) uses the WAN interface when accessing the internet.
I wrongly assumed that all traffic originating from the pfSense box would use the localhost 127.0.0.1 IP address as its source IP, which would then be NATted to the specified public IP address.

Thanks for all help.

Not had time to look at this project recently, been playing with the pfsense webconfiguration instead.

Anyway here is an updated apk > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12367642/Pfsense.apk (you will have to uninstall the previous verion if you have it)

Changelog:

Added Arp page
Added Authentication page
Added Table page
Finished the Status > Interfaces page (untested)
Improved UI of the services page
Added validation to the wake on lan page

@tadleymansions:

I certainly have learned an awful lot over the last few days and am resolved to learn more about pfsense.

Not all bad then.  ;) Thanks for signing off.

Steve

As you have discovered, RAID protects against failure of the drives. A RAID controller failure brings down the whole thing! To avoid that you need dual-channel disks that can connect to multiple controllers and software that knows how to handle the multiple paths to disks… Then if the multiple RAID controllers are on the same system bus, failure of that bus brings it all down... You need multiple hosts, each with fibre-channel (or whatever) controllers to dual-ported disks, and clustering ability...
The numbering of disk allocation in RAID will depend on the particular firmware implementation. e.g. a 4 disk RAID10 set might have disk 1+3 mirrored (set A) and 2+4 mirrored (set B). Then the logical blocks are striped across set A and set B. In that case you can lose 1 disk from set A  and 1 disk from set B and users don't notice. But if you lose 2 disks from set A, or 2 disks from set B, you are dead. So, you can't lose just any 2 drives.
The other hassle with RAID is that the firmware usually writes some custom stuff at the start of the disks, and the ordinary boot block is not where it would be on an ordinary disk. So, even if you are just doing RAID1 (mirrored pair), and the RAID controller has died, you can't just plug 1 of the disks into an ordinary disk controller and have it boot - this can be VERY annoying when trying to get something up and running temporarily.

I would highly recommend going with the fiber run.  I have done installs with even shorter runs using fiber.  I would agree with a larger pipe, that way if you need to pull additional fiber, you have the room to do that.  Make sure they put a pull string in that conduit.

As far as the rooms go, I truly feel that wired is a better solution.  I have wireless in the house, which is great for some basic thing.  However, when you start streaming HD/Blue Ray movies across wireless, you will have buffering issues.  I've also tried the Ethernet over Power adapters, which work some, but again when you get to the HD videos you start to buffer.

My wife and I are planning on building a house in the next couple of years.  I'm planning on running a minimum of two runs to each room, some with 4-6 runs.  I won't be running any coax in the house.  You may be asking why so many runs.  My family has no traditional TV in our house, which means we stream everything.  Then I also run a VOIP systems.  The next house will be automated along with Video Cameras for the security system.  Don't get me wrong, I am not your average computer person in the home.