From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jan 29 21:26:42 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA20612
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 21:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA20592
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 21:26:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199701300526.VAA20592@freefall.freebsd.org>
Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA090311978; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:26:18 +1100
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: ipdivert & masqd
To: cmott@srv.net (Charles Mott)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:26:18 +1100 (EDT)
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970129191414.1348B-100000@darkstar> from "Charles Mott" at Jan 29, 97 07:30:06 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In some mail from Charles Mott, sie said:
> 
> > > 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". 

Nobody was, just the Firewall-1/Linux implementations are imperfect.

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

This probably reflects my frustration of how difficult it is to
implement properly.

Darren