Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But doing this because the bureaucracy wants it seems like a silly
>> reason to me. I am considering writing a new pfinet from scratch
>> because the current one really sucks, in my opinion. If we wa
Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But doing this because the bureaucracy wants it seems like a silly
> reason to me. I am considering writing a new pfinet from scratch
> because the current one really sucks, in my opinion. If we want
> firewall support it should be in the new pfinet, I
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:54:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Here's one fellow's interpretation of that requirement.
>
> Marco has advocated dropping 'doorstop architectures' from Debian for
> years and he is in no way authorative on this ma
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:54:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Here's one fellow's interpretation of that requirement.
Marco has advocated dropping 'doorstop architectures' from Debian for
years and he is in no way authorative on this matter.
Of course, it would be nice to have people w
Here's one fellow's interpretation of that requirement.
--- Begin Message ---
On Mar 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> > > DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> > > s
5 matches
Mail list logo
