At 12:42 22/01/2001 -0500, John Stracke wrote: >There was even an analogy to NAT's "addresses embedded in the application data >stream" problem: if you had an address in your .signature, the gateway >couldn't >translate it, so the person receiving your message saw an address they >couldn't >use. I liked even better the horror story of the gateway that tried..... until someone wrote "this gateway translates [EMAIL PROTECTED] into [EMAIL PROTECTED]", and it came out to the recipient as "this gateway translates [EMAIL PROTECTED] into [EMAIL PROTECTED]".....which somehow failed to get the point across.... -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Henning G. Schulzrinne
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Matt Holdrege
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users John Stracke
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Sean Doran
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Sean Doran
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Sean Doran
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users ned . freed
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Ed Gerck
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- RE: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Kyle Lussier
- RE: Number of Firewall/NAT Users David R. Conrad
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Jon Crowcroft
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users David R. Conrad
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Ed Gerck
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Stephen Kent
