Thank you for bringing this up. I'm sorry you or others have had bad experience. Thank you.

@chpalmer:

Guys:  I tried to do your survey but sorry its a PIA.  ;)

For me it was marginally tolerable when I ignored the numbers and used drag/drop. I think SurveyMonkey should disable the number field for more than 5 entries.

Thanks for the input, we appreciate it! We will fix it!

FYI:

The issue is also present in 2.3.5-DEVELOPMENT (i386)

Could still send you 1000 reports… Just take 11 hours something ;)

Simple cron and you guys wake up to 1000 reports ;) hehehe

I don't see why you would be spammed if only people with X number of posts could report.

Must have exceeded the forum's upload capacity.  Even two images reproduced the error.  I was able to upload each individually.

Thank you!

i've tried to thank jimp specifically many times and run into the same issue!

@DaveB:

Hi

I would like to suggest a section of this board for "the less experienced" user to seek advice.

What do you think?

Start here http://doc.pfsense.org/

Never mind my reply above which I have now edited.

The question is too vague because there are two different things at play. First is the port forwarding part which UPnP does handle but of course the same destination port on the external address is only usable for one port forward, no way around it on pfSense or any other platform. The next thing is the outbound NAT configuration and this is what I think the question is really about and this is something the UPnP service in pfSense doesn't automate as far as I know.

lol this thread is becoming a honeypot

That's the site (the pfsense blog as opposed to…?), and if you pick around in the javascript for the theme they've purchased,there's all sorts of scrolling f***ery going on there.  I'm sure it varies from browser to browser, OS to OS.  I'm Chrome, OS-X.  It's site-specific. I've seen similar behavior on a handful of other sites, usually WordPress blogs with one of those themes that has a 200+ item bullet list of features to justify the cost of the theme.

Just pointing it out, if the blog guy doesn't grok the code they have in place that's fine, just noting it's totally annoying and gratuitous.  It resides in common/common.min.js.

I also have no interest in disabling "smooth scrolling" to correct one site.  I like my smooth scrolling elsewhere, TYVM. :)

Yes, I can see it now. Have now started to look at it.

//Dan Lundqvist