[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "List Receiver" <listreceiver at mastermindpro dot com>
 To:  "Chris Buechler" <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  "Monowall Mailing list" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] monowall vs pfsense captive portal
 Date:  Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:54:20 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Buechler [mailto:cbuechler at gmail dot com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:52 AM
> Cc: Monowall Mailing list
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] monowall vs pfsense captive portal
> 
> On 10/18/06, List Receiver <listreceiver at mastermindpro dot com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I've seen this behavior.  No one over on the pfSense dev list 
> > seems to acknowledge it, though...they say they just port 
> the CP code 
> > from m0n0.  I have no idea why it is this way.
> >
> 
> It's completely, totally, identically, 100% the same code.  I 
> don't use it on either, so I can't vouch for the speed or 
> lack thereof.
> 
> -Chris
> 

Then perhaps the problem lies outside the CP code?