Re: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared
From: George Capehart (gwc_at_acm.org)
Date: 07/01/04
- Previous message: Jim Seymour: "RE: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared"
- In reply to: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared"
- Next in thread: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared"
- Reply: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:43:22 -0400
On Tuesday 29 June 2004 13:48, Devdas Bhagat allegedly wrote:
<snip>
> Uh, no. A firewall is a firewall is a firewall. A firewall consists
> of various components, some of which may even be absent.
I'm sorry, I've been up a very long time today and I'm slap happy.
Maybe it's me, but this sounds like a firewall that Joseph Heller would
have put into _Catch_22_. Works sort of like Yossarian's attempts to
see Major Major . . . :)
/g
-- George W. Capehart Key fingerprint: 3145 104D 9579 26DA DBC7 CDD0 9AE1 8C9C DD70 34EA "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925 _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Jim Seymour: "RE: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared"
- In reply to: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared"
- Next in thread: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared"
- Reply: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewalls Compared"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|