home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ kermit.columbia.edu / kermit.columbia.edu.tar / kermit.columbia.edu / newsgroups / misc.20041116-20060924 / 000343_edgage@gmail.com_Wed May 10 12:12:25 2006.msg < prev    next >
Internet Message Format  |  2006-09-27  |  2KB
  1. Path: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
  2. From: "Ed Gage" <edgage@gmail.com>
  3. Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
  4. Subject: Re: Another Secure FTP thread -- Protection Levels
  5. Date: 8 May 2006 09:22:56 -0700
  6. Organization: http://groups.google.com
  7. Lines: 6
  8. Message-ID: <1147105376.289932.262580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
  9. References: <1146861121.842424.256350@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
  10.    <Q7P6g.35918$cY3.14015@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
  11.    <1146976219.923605.52950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
  12.    <RBl7g.53425$x97.36826@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
  13.    <1147043095.270056.69240@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
  14.    <Ygv7g.36642$cY3.34020@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
  15. NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.175.9.114
  16. Mime-Version: 1.0
  17. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
  18. X-Trace: posting.google.com 1147105382 16963 127.0.0.1 (8 May 2006 16:23:02 GMT)
  19. X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
  20. NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:23:02 +0000 (UTC)
  21. In-Reply-To: <Ygv7g.36642$cY3.34020@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
  22. User-Agent: G2/0.2
  23. X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
  24. Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
  25. Injection-Info: j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.175.9.114;
  26.    posting-account=n2RQvg0AAACdyE7hdyUFKqejJdt16fuE
  27. Xref: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:15601
  28.  
  29. Your response suggests that there might be other products out there
  30. that would have this capability.  If so, what are they?  Alternatively,
  31. if we select a router that has a firewall which allows external
  32. addresses to map to an internal NAT-protected IP, would that also solve
  33. the problem?
  34.