Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:22:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Christopher Michaels <ChrisMic@clientlogic.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ICQ Behind NAT (Was: question about 2 subnets on the same switch. ) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.03.9905121322050.23756-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <6C37EE640B78D2118D2F00A0C90FCB440110586C@site2s1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 8 May 1999, Christopher Michaels wrote: > Pardon my intrusion, but why is this so problematic? I've been running ICQ > behind my firewall w/o any apparent problems. Maybe I just haven't noticed > them. Is everyone switching the 'use server' switch then? I know that it hits my firewalls and falls over. > Also, on that note, what SOCKS proxy would you recommend? The NEC socks5 daemon that's in ports. > > > I *HIGHLY* recommend SOCKS for ICQ. ICQ has such a twisted protocol > > it's > > > insane to run it behind a firewall any other way. I have it set up on a > > > client's gateway and it works flawlessly. > > > > Thanks for that, I was wondering why it was crapping out Doug White Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.03.9905121322050.23756-100000>