May i make assumption. DHCP was serving .1 address as gateway and pfsense were .2?

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid. I might just use squid or varnish instead.  (I'm looking for a very lightweight HTTP CONNECT capable proxy server and tinyproxy sounded perfect but I don't want to break pfSense and tinyproxy has a ton of dependencies…)

Here are the commits and bug fixes: http://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/roadmap This should help you find what you are looking for.

@Nachtfalke: whitlist allows the traffic always even if there is another rule with higher priority which blocks traffic. Whitlist: allows always allow: allows only if there is no other rule which blocks. Hope this makes it a little bit clearer !? wow! perfect man! Thank you so much!

Excellent, thanks guys.. its all working nicely.  Just wish i could get my public IP block forwarded so easily!! lol

I think not working on Chrome should be cause enough to call it a bug; Let alone the big base of clients that IE has. Anyhow, not trying to make this a philosophical issue but I think it can qualify as a bug if it ONLY works in Firefox. I can't test it on Firefox as I don't have it. I can also live with the bug as it's doesn't effect the functions but it's an aesthetic issue.

I think I found a better way of handling this.  I created a new schedule and that seems to work.

Why do you keep asking this 192.168.1.254 for time, who is he trying to sync with?  And where is your pfsense box set to sync with? Is this address on your WAN or LAN? I dont think your pfSense box will sync from someone on the lan…

If I had to guess, maybe 0.1% of the users who would even want to use that feature, would use it in its current form. The other 99.9% would want it based on group membership. So I think it would make sense for the platform in general to move in that direction, not just for any specific user's sake. But, I'm just guessing here.

As dotdash says, almost everyone will recognize "BSD firewall". I tell companies we have a pfSense box (and sometimes even m0n0wall) and they're like "what?". I have yet to meet someone that knows what they are. I tell them it's a BSD firewall and they say "ohh, ok".

A few examples just so you know what kind of feature I'm looking for: OpenNop and WANProxy

The tftp proxy is used for internal devices to connect to external tftp servers. Typically when you have idiot voip phone vendors and your phones need to tftp their configs/firmware. In my experience, you turn it on and it works. For your situation, I would think you could just create a port forward on 69/udp to your internal server.

WAN1 and WAN2 are both connected to DSL modems. One is a 6mbit DSL line and the other is an 18mbit Uverse line.

Unless you have used the advanced options and configured it, there is no limit on state entries/connections from a particular host. I'm going to assume you would have mentioned it if you were running Snort or something. Have you looked at the states to verify RIM's servers are actually hammering the firewall? The guy in the link's problems might be due to the fact that Netscreens suck, your issue could be different.

Since I no longer have a 1.2.3 install I can't certain about this but in general…. You probably need to add a symlink called libncurses.so.8 and point it at what ever version of libcurses is part of pfSense 1.2.3. Steve

Yes, I'm looking forward to that. Thanks Jim!  :) Steve

Have you reset firewall states? See Diagnostics -> States, click on Reset States tab.

Hi, I am sorry but I didn't play with this kind of information. Cachemgr.cgi was just to give you some information about how squid performs. "All Cached Objects" shows you all objects in squid but they are "encrypted". Here are some information about these lines: 14.2.1.26 objects: All Cache Objects http://tilt.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/docs/books/squid/TheDefinitiveGuideChinese/0596001622/squid-CHP-14-SECT-2.html