Re: NAT redundant w/firewall?

Leythos wrote:

In article <44249F6D.5397F94F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
notan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
The only thing I said was, "For the vast majority of home users, you're *way*
out of the financial ballpark."

And you seem to keep missing that I was NOT addressing HOME USERS, as
HOME USERS ARE NOT SOHO CLASS.

I guess the H in SOHO *doesn't* mean Home.

Damn Google!

Notan
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: XP home SP2 to XP pro SP2
    ... features (mostly related to security and networking) missing from ... Most home users don't need and would never use these extra ... features and will see no benefits by upgrading. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: XP home SP2 to XP pro SP2
    ... features (mostly related to security and networking) missing from ... Most home users don't need and would never use these extra ... features and will see no benefits by upgrading. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: NAT redundant w/firewall?
    ... And you seem to keep missing that I was NOT addressing HOME USERS, ... HOME USERS ARE NOT SOHO CLASS. ... I guess the H in SOHO *doesn't* mean Home. ... in the Home user market, I put it in the SOHO market." ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Freebie Kerio Firewall Gone??
    ... > The're hardly like to start charging for V2! ... > What are you missing? ... it is *free* for home users. ... It's highly unlikely that K2.1.5 would have more stringent coditions now ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: WinXP Home to Pro
    ... > few features (mostly related to security and networking) missing ... Most home users don't need and would never use these ... > extra features and will see no benefits by upgrading. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)