Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users

[Keith Moore]

> > I remember when the email
> > network was a heterogeneous network consisting of UUCP, BITNET, DECnet,
> > SMTP, X.400, and a few other things thrown in.  It "worked", sort of,
> > but we had all kinds of problems with the translations at the boundaries,
> > with addresses from one network leaking past the gateways into another
> > network, with addresses being "translated" in such a way that they
> > were no longer usable in the destination network.
> 
> There was even an analogy to NAT's "addresses embedded in the application 
> data stream" problem: if you had an address in your .signature, the gateway
> couldn't translate it, so the person receiving your message saw an address 
> they couldn't use.

at least in those days, gateway proponents didn't insist that people
shouldn't include email addresses in the bodies of their messages.

Keith