[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Donald Deacon" <donald at 501 dot co dot za>
 To:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Comparative Products to M0n0wall
 Date:  Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:08:56 -0000

I was not knocking SW at all. It just didn't fit our profile! I think its a
great product. Let's not be too sensitive here. Thanks to people like you
Richard the rest of us benefit! Imagine trying to get free Software from MS!

I really liked all the excellent logging abilities, the Snort IDS of SW and
the ease it installed.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Morrell" <dick at dickmorrell dot com>
To: <Hilton at QuarkAV dot com>
Cc: <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Comparative Products to M0n0wall

> Quoting Hilton Travis <Hilton at QuarkAV dot com>:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Actually, approximately 50% of the released SmoothWall patches have been
> > patches to fix broken patches that weren't tested properly before being
> > unleashed on the public.  Check the release notes and you'll see what I
> > mean.
> Dude you've never met Lawrence. Blame large breasted women and bad
> rather than lack of security nonce :) I wouldnt say 50% maybe 25% and to
> him his dues they were easy mistakes to make. Introduce the Neuro factor
> you have issues :)
> Testing isn't an issue - its more laziness
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> ---
> ***  Scanned for Viruses by Digital Dynamix   www.digital.co.za   ***