> > As I said, you're being pedantic. Extremely so, at this point. SANS, for > > No, I'm being accurate- it's like the difference between saying "The true > meaning of baud is bits per second" and saying "The popular meaning of > baud is bits per second." One of the statements is facutally correct, the > other isn't. Your choice of the term true was in error, get over it.
Clearly you need to learn to read. I never said my definition was the *only* definition, unlike you. The only rigid definition is *yours*. Frankly, all you're doing at this point is proving my point. > > one, doesn't agree with your rigid definition. Perhaps you should take the > > My definition isn't as rigid as yours, mine says the "true" definition of > DMZ is the network that's outside the firewall and inside the border > router- Um, no, you explicitly stated otherwise. Reading clearly isn't your strong suit. Just in case you forgot what you wrote: "DMZ tradtitionally meant "network the external interface of the firewall and internal interface of the border router share." Personally, I prefer to stick with the traditional definitions.." Too bad you can't even type a sentence that makes sense. > look at the term itself- DMZ's are behind a defensive perimeter. I never said otherwise; in fact, I stated exactly what you're saying above. > I readily agree that it's not the "popular" definition, but that still > doesn't make it the true one, unless you're willing to redefine the use of > the term true as well. You say that you have the only real definition, > you're mistaken. Show me where I said the "only" definition was mine. You have serious problems. > > My definition was *quite* accurate. Your responses, however, indicate only > > No, with the qualifier of "true," your definition was inaccurate. No, it wasn't. My original statement, in its entirety: "A "true" DMZ may have a firewall between the Internet and the DMZ, as well as between the DMZ and the intranet." Note the use of the words "may" and "also", dim bulb. > > truculence and intractibility. If you secure your network in the same > > manner, then you're in for a few surprises. As I said in my original > > I've probably been securing networks longer than you've been out of high > school- I doubt you've seen anything that would surprise me. I just love it when people wag their weenies like this. You haven't the vaguest idea how long I've been doing anything, nor do you have the vaguest idea how old I am. Clearly, I'm significantly older than *you* think I am and have been doing this for much longer than *you* think I have. Again, however, this points only to your own issues. Time to grow up, Paul. > > response, a true DMZ may also lie between two firewalls. My statement was > > accurate, and your insistence has now just become ridiculous. > > Without the qualifier "true," your statement would have been accurate, it > wasn't. Learn to read, Paul. Then you, too, can proudly claim, "Huked on Foniks werked fer mee." Get a grip on something other than the front of your pants. Laura _______________________________________________ Firewalls mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
