On Feb 27, 2004, at 4:18 PM, JJB wrote:
Well if you had paid closer attention to what Travis wrote you would
have read that nothing had changed on that 5.2 lan box or his lan
network so your guess about resolv.conf is way off base, and that
UFS2 being the problem is a much more sound opinion.

Sigh. I didn't claim that his resolv.conf changed; I didn't claim that his LAN network changed; I said that the behavior he describes is quite close to what would happen if one of the nameservers referenced in resolv.conf was having problems.

Do you not comprehend this?

And as far as IPFW goes, your statement is again another case of you
not paying attention to what was written. You really need to read
closely before opening your mouth saying things which are not true.
I never said "that IPFW is completely broken" what I said is ipfw
stateful rules do not work in an Lan network when ipfw's
divert/nated legacy subroutine is used. This subject was beat to
death in a long thread back around the first of the year. You should
check the archives for the technical details before you sound off
demonstrating to everyone how little you know about what truly has
transpired. Open mouth insert foot.

Young one, you are considerably less clever than you evidently think you are. That's not surprising; this is unfortunately true of most people. A tone of condescending snobbery pretty much is never appropriate, regardless of who is right or wrong.

I don't need to review the archives to remember that discussion; at that time I read them and concluded that you were unable to understand how to make IPFW+NAT work the way you expected it to. However, there are lots of people who use IPFW+NAT successfully ("success" by their definitions, that is), just as there are people who use PF or other tools.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to