From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jan 29 18:30:46 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA11551
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darkstar (ras540.srv.net [205.180.127.40])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA11546
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:30:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from cmott@localhost) by darkstar (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01376; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:30:08 -0700
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:30:06 -0700 (MST)
From: Charles Mott <cmott@srv.net>
X-Sender: cmott@darkstar
To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ipdivert & masqd
In-Reply-To: <9701300203.AA10014@snake.srv.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970129191414.1348B-100000@darkstar>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > My syntax may have been a little unclear.  It is just that I had never
> > heard of the TIS ... Gauntlet program.  Is it just an FTP client, or
> > something more advanced?  If source code is available, I think that some
> > may wish to update the code. 
> 
> Firewall product.
> 
> The point is, it isn't Gauntlet or the Firewall Toolkit which is doing
> anything wrong, it is the "transparent proxy" which makes bad assumptions
> (although 99% of the time it gets away with them).
> 
> Darren
> 

I've seen quite a bit of feedback from several continents on the software I 
have written.  In particular, any time I have made a mistake, I have 
been *very* quickly informed by users.  I have yet to see any complaints 
from users about ftp handling.

In any event, it would be unusual to have such a firewall behind the
packet aliasing software I have written.  It would be interesting to see
whether the authors of the firewall product you mention were being
deliberately "difficult". 

Standards are flexible.  Most well-intentioned authors of free software
want to see their products be as compatible as possible with outside
solutions.  Having software work with transparent proxies is something
that many people are aware of.  Of course, people writing commercial 
products often have very different motives.

Your comments are interesting, but your attitude is not constructive in 
my view.


Charles Mott