On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 04:55:50PM +1100, DaZZa wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Andy Eager wrote:
>
> > Certainly pretty good as far as a basic explanation goes, problem is
> > that masquerading is not yet up to the level of ipchains and thats what
> > most people want. (One IP address, masqueraded
> Jeff, I absolutley respect your opinion, after all you pointed me in the
> direction of postfix in all its glory and I owe a great many beeers
> for that and a great many emails on other things as well. However, I dont
> know that H323 (as esoteric as it may be) is what we were talking abo
Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>>OK, I'm prepared to be knocked down in flames here (only if your gentle)
>>
>
>You want to be flamed for the consultant's suggestion? :)
>
No, but I backed it up with my own research, therefore it makes it mine
as well!!!
>>but recently I paid a reasonably well known Lin
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 12:06:54AM +1100, Andy Eager wrote:
> Dazza wrote:
> >I have a 2.4 kernel running iptables, and it seems to do everything fine -
> >telnet, ssh, ftp, ICQ, irc, real audio, http, https - I haven't found
> >anything yet that _doesn't_ work.
>
> Are you masquerading all of th
Andy Eager was once rumoured to have said:
> Certainly pretty good as far as a basic explanation goes, problem is
> that masquerading is not yet up to the level of ipchains and thats what
> most people want. (One IP address, masqueraded to many machines for use
> with ftp, realaudio etc). I st
> OK, I'm prepared to be knocked down in flames here (only if your gentle)
You want to be flamed for the consultant's suggestion? :)
> but recently I paid a reasonably well known Linux consultant to advise me
> on a job I'm doing for a paying customer to install a firewall (that has
> to do ma
DaZZa wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Andy Eager wrote:
Certainly pretty good as far as a basic explanation goes, problem isthat masquerading is not yet up to the level of ipchains and thats whatmost people want. (One IP address, masqueraded to many machines for usewith
Tuesday, 5 March 2002 15:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SLUG] How this for a simple recommendation for IP-Tables
firewalling and ICS
Certainly pretty good as far as a basic explanation goes, problem is
that masquerading is not yet up to the level of ipchains and thats what
most people want
- Original Message -
From: "DaZZa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andy Eager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [SLUG] How this for a simple recommendation for IP-Tables
firewalling and ICS
Certainly pretty good as far as a basic explanation goes, problem is
that masquerading is not yet up to the level of ipchains and thats what
most people want. (One IP address, masqueraded to many machines for use
with ftp, realaudio etc). I still reckon that ipchains with a 2.2
kernel is stil
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/nhf/intel/security/iptables_basics.html
Any major flaws in this, anything important missed ?
Is it worthwhile for recommending to somebody ?
Chris
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
11 matches
Mail list logo
