RE: Flawed arguments (Was all that other crap about PFW day)

["Erik van Straten" <emvs.fd.3FB4D11C () cpo tn tudelft nl>]

In [4], On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:33:29 -0600 Paul Schmehl wrote:
> The previous poster complains that PFWs fool people into thinking
> that they are more secure.  Several other posters have cited the
> fact that most *nixes now come with "the firewall enabled", which
> obviously means they think that makes *nix more secure.  So, they
> believe, simply by having iptables (or whatever) enabled, they are
> more secure.

You started a new subject - clearly a rant

*I* [1] complained that PFW's fool people into thinking that they are
more secure - an idea you reject *AND* support in the same post [2]
clearly shown in [3]

You quoted only *MY* text - now you're talking "several other posters"
who are you ranting anyway

In your explanation [4] you're leaving out one of both relevant
paragraphs from [3] and provide a stupid excuse

I pity you - Get Some Sleep

Erik

[1] http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2004-January/015674.html
[2] http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2004-January/015675.html
[3] http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2004-January/015678.html
[4] http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2004-January/015689.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html