On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:11:12 +0100, Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > 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.... The best one-paragraph summary of RFC2993 I've seen yet. /V
- 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
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
