Re: which firewall

From: Brian (Witch*Dr@usa.nojunkemail.net.ru)
Date: 05/27/02


From: "Brian" <Witch*Dr@usa.nojunkemail.net.ru>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:36:56 -0700


<chris@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:n7s4fucubaspiak5kco9mpognahnnr3kkt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 08:28:44 +0200, Peter Larsen
> <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> If I had a choice, I would highly recommend using Apache, and have it
> configured/maintained by someone who knows what they are doing.
> Unfortunately, I find that most IIS website managers barely know
> enough to get the site online, much less secure it and keep it
> secured. On the other hand they do have that shiny MCSE on the
> wall....

MCSE=Must Consult Someone Experienced



Relevant Pages

  • Re: which firewall
    ... > If I had a choice, I would highly recommend using Apache, and have it ... > enough to get the site online, much less secure it and keep it ... On the other hand they do have that shiny MCSE on the ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: which firewall
    ... > If I had a choice, I would highly recommend using Apache, and have it ... > enough to get the site online, much less secure it and keep it ... On the other hand they do have that shiny MCSE on the ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: which firewall
    ... > If I had a choice, I would highly recommend using Apache, and have it ... > enough to get the site online, much less secure it and keep it ... On the other hand they do have that shiny MCSE on the ...
    (comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.security)
  • Re: which firewall
    ... Brian wrote: ... >> If I had a choice, I would highly recommend using Apache, and have it ... >> enough to get the site online, much less secure it and keep it ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: which firewall
    ... Brian wrote: ... >> If I had a choice, I would highly recommend using Apache, and have it ... >> enough to get the site online, much less secure it and keep it ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)