On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Laura A. Robinson wrote: > I didn't say "traditional", I said "true". While you may prefer to stick > with traditional definitions, I prefer to stick with what is now accurate.
While it's maybe more pervasive, it's certainly not accurate. A "true" DMZ hangs outside the firewall, the "popular" term may include service networks, but it's not the "true" term, since the word true tends to denote accuracy. > There is a whole lot of oversimplification on the part of some here, and > that's dangerous in the security arena. "Spam" once referred merely to You mean oversimplification like calling two different *but similar* things by the same name? > gelatinous pork product; does that mean its current usage is invalid? No. > You're being pedantic. A more accurate parallel would be calling both hot dogs and hamburgers "spam." Unsolicited commercial e-mail, and Hormel's product are disimillar things which can be differentiated by context. Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions [EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact." _______________________________________________ Firewalls mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
