From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Oct 21 18:31:57 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from grumpy.dyndns.org (user-24-214-92-93.knology.net [24.214.92.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F2037B409 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grumpy.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9M1VJw44179; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:31:19 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dkelly@grumpy.dyndns.org) Message-Id: <200110220131.f9M1VJw44179@grumpy.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" Cc: Allen Landsidel , Kal Torak , FreeBSD Stable From: David Kelly Subject: Re: ICQ with NAT problems In-reply-to: Message from "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" of "Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:52:51 EDT." <109960000.1003711970@vpn46.ece.cmu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:31:19 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" writes: > On Sunday, October 21, 2001 19:47:57 -0500, David Kelly > wrote: > +----- > | What am I missing about the problem that the punch_fw option in natd is > | not supposed to deal with? Is my understanding ICQ is only a particular > | implementation of IRC? > +--->8 > > Er, no; while it has a similar purpose, the protocol is completely > different and I would be surprised if punch_fw worked with it. OK, my ignorance was showing. If its all that common/popular then it might be a candidate for enhancing libalias and therefore natd. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message