From owner-freebsd-questions Wed May 12 13:22:44 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from resnet.uoregon.edu (resnet.uoregon.edu [128.223.144.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0188914D1D for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 13:22:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by resnet.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA04905; Wed, 12 May 1999 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:22:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: Christopher Michaels Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ICQ Behind NAT (Was: question about 2 subnets on the same switch. ) In-Reply-To: <6C37EE640B78D2118D2F00A0C90FCB440110586C@site2s1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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