From owner-cvs-ports  Thu Aug  7 11:28:38 1997
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA21780
          for cvs-ports-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 11:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (ppp-206-170-5-34.rdcy01.pacbell.net [206.170.5.34])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA21768;
          Thu, 7 Aug 1997 11:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shockwave.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA09022; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 11:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199708071827.LAA09022@precipice.shockwave.com>
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG,
        cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security Makefile 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Aug 1997 01:15:49 PDT."
             <199708070815.BAA01044@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 11:27:50 -0700
From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
Sender: owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I don't understand why we have a socks4 port at all.  socks5 is upwards
and backwards compatible with 4, and supports a lot more functionality.

I'd like to see the socks4 port not exist at all, as I think it just adds
to confusion.

However, socks is much more general than just security, and as such, that's
why I put it in net in the first place (it's application relay, which is a
poor-man's nat).

FWIW, if my memory serves me right, I was either the author or the maintainer
of both the socks4 and socks5 ports we originally had.

Paul