Re: Smoothwall
From: Jason (sales@real.com)
Date: 12/10/02
- Next message: RB: "Re: Is a velociraptor a good choice?"
- Previous message: MoGh: "Re: avoid Black Ice PCP!"
- In reply to: taharka: "Re: Smoothwall"
- Next in thread: taharka: "Re: Smoothwall"
- Reply: taharka: "Re: Smoothwall"
- Reply: Kevin Hayes: "Re: Smoothwall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Jason" <sales@real.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:35:52 GMT
"taharka" <taharka@HotPOP.com> wrote in message
news:C5rJ9.931$iT6.548368@news.alltel.net...
>
> "Cxyber" <Cxyber@hatesSpam.here> wrote in message
> news:Xns92E0A48E8357ECxyberhatesSpamhere@210.49.20.254...
> > Thankx Folks,,
> > I shall go try IPCop..
> > Any comments on how secure this might be..
> > Also what about blocking out-going packets.?
>
> IMHO, Smoothwall 2.0 bullet is the superior product. Newer kernel &
IPTABLES
> vs. IPCHAINS in IPcop. Besides, why settle for a fork of Smoothwall when
you
> can have the real deal at the same price?
>
Well for one thing you don't have to deal with RM if you don't use
smoothwall. That alone is worth using IPCop
- Next message: RB: "Re: Is a velociraptor a good choice?"
- Previous message: MoGh: "Re: avoid Black Ice PCP!"
- In reply to: taharka: "Re: Smoothwall"
- Next in thread: taharka: "Re: Smoothwall"
- Reply: taharka: "Re: Smoothwall"
- Reply: Kevin Hayes: "Re: Smoothwall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|