From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Apr 22 20:57:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail1.atl.bellsouth.net (mail1.atl.bellsouth.net [205.152.0.28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3744E14F57 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:57:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wghicks@bellsouth.net) Received: from wghicks.bellsouth.net (host-209-214-66-221.atl.bellsouth.net [209.214.66.221]) by mail1.atl.bellsouth.net (8.8.8-spamdog/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA20060; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:53:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wghicks (wghicks@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wghicks.bellsouth.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id XAA74805; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:55:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wghicks@wghicks.bellsouth.net) Message-Id: <199904230355.XAA74805@bellsouth.net> To: jmutter@netwalk.com Cc: Adam Ulmer , iratus@home.com, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, wghicks@wghicks.bellsouth.net Subject: Re: Security In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:47:07 EDT." Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:55:22 -0400 From: W Gerald Hicks Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > True, a firewall is not automatic protection. However, a well > configured firewall (it's really not that difficult) is always a > preferable solution to tcp-wrappers. Right. But a true firewall doesn't permit the passage of *any* network packets, correct? A packet filter is much more convenient to use and provides plenty of protection for most folks. Cheers, Jerry Hicks wghicks@bellsouth. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message