Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 22:44:42 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.COM> To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security Makefile Message-ID: <19970810224442.48530@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <199708071827.LAA09022@precipice.shockwave.com>; from Paul Traina on Thu, Aug 07, 1997 at 11:27:50AM -0700 References: <199708070815.BAA01044@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> <199708071827.LAA09022@precipice.shockwave.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. Give me a working socks5 configuration file that works at HP and I'll be *more* than glad to remove it. HP uses a modified version of socks4, and I don't know of any of the Linux weenies there that gotten socks5 to work with the firewall. (I'll be the first to admit, I don't know much about socks). > However, socks is much more general than just security, and as such, that's Really? I've only ever heard it come up in firewall/security situations. -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com -or- obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970810224442.48530>