[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Molle Bestefich" <molle dot bestefich at gmail dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] problem when using VLANs and NAT
 Date:  Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:21:21 +0200
Lee Sharp:
> You have made several demanding or accusing comments
> and posts, and that can turn people off.

Chris Buechler:
> That was just the last straw of you being an arrogant ass.

I think you should both stop accusing people of doing or being this or
that without backing it up with something to prove your point.  Quote
and reason, and I'll take you seriously.

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but yelling "you're stupid!" at
someone without telling them why is so not constructive, especially
over e-mail.

Lee Sharp:
> (The entire interfaced based rules thread is one example of you being right,

I just asked why it is like it is, you can't be "wrong" or "right"
when asking a question.

I argued that having interfaces so deeply intervowen in the rulebase
is probably wrong, and noone could convincingly argue otherwise, so I
guess I was right about that notion, yeah.

(Since then I've figured that I can see a much prettier way to do NAT
than what's currently in m0n0wall, but I'll refrain from posting a RFC
since I reckon I'll be slaughtered ;-).)

> and the rest of us being a bunch of idiots for not
> following the Checkpoint default way)

I have no clue where you've got that from.
Not something I said, I hope.

> Let us all just face the fact that y'all won't be inviting each
> other to your respective Christmas parties, and move on.

Throw a m0n0wall christmas party, I'll show up..  I'll even install
m0n0wall on a Soekris board and wrap it as a present for Chris.  But
he gets to be Santa, cause he's fatter than me... Nyah, nyah ;-).

Klaus Stock:
> No need to start a firewar. Erm, flamewall.

lol :D!

Chris Buechler:
> I was [snip] being helpful.

You certainly have been, thank you very much!