Sorry for breaking in like this...
Manuel Kasper wrote:
> On 19.05.2004 00:23 +0800, Dinesh Nair wrote:
>>i guess the notion of just setting up another webserver for a
>>single image may be a bit too much for some. for me, i actually
>>have no worries on this.
> Huh? Setting up a web server? No need for that - everybody's got some
> webspace somewhere, no?
Well, no, actually! And even if I did have some kind of public
webserver access, I think I'd prefer not to have to access the WAN
just to show an image on my portal page.
Fortunatly, I have no urgent need to use images on my portal page ;)
But... IMHO, it should be left to the user to decide what should go
where, especially since I get the impression that m0n0wall already has
everything needed for this (not only the http server, but even the
code for uploading files and for moving them to RAM at bootup etc.) I
certainly don't see any reason for activly preventing such use of
m0n0wall, even if you don't want to spend time making a nice webGUI
page for it (which would be nice though!)
Who knows, some people might like the idea of having m0n0wall serve a
small web site on their LAN, or perhaps some kind of auto-configure
script for setting up their clients TCP/IP or Proxy settings or stuff
Well, just my opinion. As always I will defer to your judgement, which
have so far brought us the best firewall in the world ;)