Subject: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

From: "Robert G. Ferrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:48:16 -0600 (CST)

>Such views, I submit, are a form of religion.

Religion is a belief in a power higher than oneself. 
NAT-mania is a form of mass delusion.

Cheers,

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP
========================================
 Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
========================================

---

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:42:49 +0100 (CET)

| I respectfully but firmly disagree that this is "the discussion at 
| hand", or even that such a discussion is a useful. but if you must 
| have that discussion, please take it to the midcom list. 

Ah, sorry, mea maxima culpa - I had misread (several times)
the To:/Cc: line as containing the midcom address, when in
fact it's just the Subject line.

There is a small irony in making mistakes because of a mismatch
between address components being used in places in a message other
than the obvious source and destination address fields in a header,
and the things actually used by the message transport system.

| there would be no point to a NAT-haters lis

Well if you are content to bruise your knees in public, be my guest.

	Sean.