Packages wishlist?
-
OpenVPN with filtering rules….
-
-
Still looking for an SSL VPN.
I posted a bounty a while ago.
Something like SSL-Explorer: 443 based, no installation on the client side necessary.
Did not make it into tha base because SSL-Explorer uses Java. But as a package?
(Does not need to be SSL-Explorer, just a good example.)
Thanks. -
I'm very interested in trying to get a good SIPproxy/Server into pfSense
and the following looks quite promising as it seems to be very
lightweigh, scalable and adaptable and powerful.
http://www.openser.org/mos/view/Features/
I'm going to make a small study if it's feasible to adapt it for
pfSense but I know it's a big undertaking to get it integrated
and i'm doubting my skills to do it.Looks VERY interesting. Have you tried setting it up on a normal Linux?
-
I'm very interested in trying to get a good SIPproxy/Server into pfSense
and the following looks quite promising as it seems to be very
lightweigh, scalable and adaptable and powerful.
http://www.openser.org/mos/view/Features/
I'm going to make a small study if it's feasible to adapt it for
pfSense but I know it's a big undertaking to get it integrated
and i'm doubting my skills to do it.Looks VERY interesting. Have you tried setting it up on a normal Linux?
Nope, not yet… Got occupied with in my real world. (waiting for a baby)
//Dan Lundqvist
-
I would like to see spamd back on the package list for inbound spam-filtering and sendmail for outbound email only. If needed I can put a bounty for someone helping me create a lightweight version of sendmail package.
-
I would like to see spamd back on the package list for inbound spam-filtering and sendmail for outbound email only. If needed I can put a bounty for someone helping me create a lightweight version of sendmail package.
Check the bounty section, spamd is already on the list there. Maybe contribute to this bounty if you are really interested in this.
-
An ospf package would be great (don't know if there is a bounty yet though).
-
I would really like to see dansguardian added as a package. It is far superior to squidguard.
-
I would really like to see dansguardian added as a package. It is far superior to squidguard.
Already been requested countless times and debunked countless times due to its license.
-
Looks VERY interesting. Have you tried setting it up on a normal Linux?
Repeat after me FreeBSD is not Linux :P
-
"Already been requested countless times and debunked countless times due to its license."
How is that? Does that mean I have been using it illegally all this time?
-
Prolly not if your a home user, but as i remember it commercial use is forbidden.. But you could do a search :)
Maybe SquidGuard will fit your needs ? -
I work at a public library. I have used both squidguard and dansguardian. Dansguardian is far superior. Squidguard, while a fine piece of software, is just not enough. The scum that walk in the door at our library found all sorts of ways around it. They have a much harder time with dansguardian.
Am I skirting dansguardian's license using it for a non-profit organization? Even with the license, what difference does that make such that pfsense can't have a package for it?
-
The first page of this thread: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,2703.0.html explains the problem with dansguardian.
-
All I get out of reading that link is that DansGuardian is free for non-commercial use. That is exactly what I use it for now, in a non-profit public library.
Where exactly is the problem?
-
Did you even read the thread???
Well, interpreting the license allows us to make the package available at least. And we may even include it into pfSense. The problems start when people start installing dansGuardian on site.
I want to make it part of a unix-like distribution such as RedHat.
Yes.
I want to try it out for potential commercial use.
Yes, but only once.
I want to use it commercially[2].
No, you must buy a download licence.
I want to incorporate it into our product or solution.
No, you must buy a solution provider download licence. -
Yes - all three pages.
So you make the package such that the end-user has to download DG. OR - the package installer downloads it. Then, as far as I am concerned, if you are not a commercial user, you are within the license.
Did Daniel Barron specifically say that you could not write a package for DG? Did anybody ask him directly? How is it that IPCop can get DG but pfSense can't? Sounds like somebody has a grudge somewhere to me!
-
No grudge here :)
Maybe you should start the discussion in the other thread again / open a bounty if you really feel that this should be incorporated into pfSense.
-
Yes - all three pages.
So you make the package such that the end-user has to download DG. OR - the package installer downloads it. Then, as far as I am concerned, if you are not a commercial user, you are within the license.
Did Daniel Barron specifically say that you could not write a package for DG? Did anybody ask him directly? How is it that IPCop can get DG but pfSense can't? Sounds like somebody has a grudge somewhere to me!
He used to work for Smoothwall. Not sure how it fits into IPCOP.
