From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Aug 13 17:59:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA11363
          for questions-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from federation.addy.com (federation.addy.com [207.239.68.2])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA11356
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (fbsdlist@localhost) by federation.addy.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA23285 for <questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:59:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:59:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Cliff Addy <fbsdlist@federation.addy.com>
To: questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Bandwidth limiter
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970813205414.22991A-100000@federation.addy.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks to all who wrote suggesting bandwidth limiter ideas.  We've found a
couple of interesting solutions, Aponet and Guardian.

BTW, for those of you who wrote to say etinc wasn't all that bad, here's a
couple of quotes from their latest email to me concerning their licensing
scheme on their bandwidth limiter:

  "Nah, we'll just lose a couple of morons like yourself"

  "Your logic is flawed, and usually the thinking of someone who has a
  propensity to cheat"

  "you have more money than brains"

'nuff said ...