nfsen is my preferred option there. Best open source one I've seen. Scrutinizer is definitely nice, but very costly.

You need to go forward at this point, not backwards. Especially not backwards to a Heartbleed-vulnerable version. Try 2.2, that's vastly safer than 2.1.1 at this point.

@stephenw10: Just set a firewall rule on the internal interface that the mailserver is on. Specify the source IP as the mail server and the gateway as whichever WAN you want to use. Steve It is so easy when you know how it's done. Now I kinda feel stupid. But thanks anyways :) Appreciate it very much!

with a /29 you would have 192.168.99.192 - 192.168.99.199 available in your subnet.  Try pinging each and every one except the address your WAN is set to. For the rest-  a great number of small rural ISP's use private space on their networks between their routers and customer WAN.

Yeah - At least one really good person who is always on the clock or like he was saying, ESF professional paid assistance.

If you set the gateways on your DNS servers to the proper ISP, your DNS servers should get /32 routes out that specific gateway which should override the default route out the tunnel. Note that this leaks your DNS queries to the global internet and they will no longer go out PIA (if your clients are configured to use them) so you're leaking info if you want to stay anonymous. Otherwise you need to figure out how to use PIAs name servers, or have firewall rules that steer DNS queries to the proper places.

I doubt it.  Your traffic is probably being converted to ATM over the DSL network.  I highly doubt layer 2 info like VLAN tags can survive the trip.  But being a bridge it might.  You really need to talk to your DSL provider.  If nothing else, you will need to get your DSL bridge ports configured from untagged to tagged.  Then you need to determine if your q-in-q tags make it across.

thank you for your answer, ill do as you say… thanks

@BeerCan: try User naming attribute = samAccountName Group naming attribute = cn Group member attribute = memberOf There is more but I am late for a meeting :) perfect thank you, that works under Diagnostics - Authenication and with the space in the OU name (no need for %20 etc). Now how do I allow this to log on to pfsense for report monitoring ?

What would be cool would be if SMF would automatically suspend posting privileges for accounts with < 5 posts with a 1:5 or greater posts:smites ratio.  That way we could just crowd-moderate these fuckers.

@cmb: @kejianshi: Is it a 2.1.5 problem also?  Thats what those pfsense I was talking about are on. No, that problem never existed in 2.1.x, that was a regression in 2.2 only that I fixed a couple days ago. Guessing it is the cause of OP's issue if that's on a snapshot that's more than 1-2 days old. It worked! :D Current build is  Fri Nov 07 00:00:15 CST 2014, FreeBSD 10.1-RC4-p1. Unchecked Firewall -> NAT -> 1:1 -> Edit -> NAT reflection = use system default Services -> DNS forwarder -> Register DHCP leases in DNS forwarder and Register DHCP static mappings in DNS forwarder Unchecked. And of course the settings for DNS Split in Services -> DNS forwarder -> Host Override. Only thing is. When having multiple websites on one machine that you can access via different subdomaines like site1.mydomain.com site2.mydomain.com etc. Host Overrides only gives you the default website since I can not assign a specific directory to a subdomain. But I guess we will figure something out. It is not as important as the mailserver was. So thank you very much! –--------------------------------------- //Edit: Just a little update for all the googlers that might come here later. To solve the website issue, we setup our own bind DNS on an extra machine. This DNS handles all requests from IPFire. Directs requests to sub.domain.com to the internal IP of that server. And in case that IP is a Webserver, Apache with Vhosts handles it and forward that to the specific directory. So thats it :)

FreeBSD-based.  Going to look at upgrading in the first instance.  Thanks for your help

up!

Sounds like either your pfsense is seriously hosed or the computer you are using to access it is.  Not sure if a switch could cause this, but I'd direct connect to the pfsense to test.

haha - well take comfort in knowing that your simple mistakes are the only mistakes I could spot (-;

Well that is easy enough to fix - why would those ports be open, only thing outbound from a work network should be the proxy ;)