Re: Apology - not necessary

Perry E. Metzger (perrypiermont.com)
Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:04:10 -0400

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Ryan Russell: "Re: GXD vs. SPF"
• Previous message: R. DuFresne: "are firewalls limited to only protecting ehternet connections?"
• Next in thread: John Nicholson: "Re: Apology - not necessary"
• Reply: John Nicholson: "Re: Apology - not necessary"

Frank Willoughby writes:
> At 09:38 AM 9/24/98 -0400, Jason L. Snowden wrote:
> >I apologize to the list. I was given mis-information, and then spread it
> >without verifying it. I was incorrect on my comments on FW-1, and apologize
> >to the list and to CheckPoint for spreading rumors.
>
> Jason,
>
> IMO, there is nothing to apologize for.

I believe Mr. Snowden committed what would generally be called "libel"
and had every reason on earth to apologize.

I personally am not a fan of Checkpoint FW1 -- I think that it is too
easy to misconfigure and have some other issues with it -- but the
grotesque slanders you and others are spreading, filled with innuendo
and absolutely no content, disgust me to my core.

The rest of your message, which seems to be "we can't trust Israelis
and have to assume FW1 is filled with back doors", is about as low on
the scale as I can imagine a professional in our world sinking. You
should be ashamed of yourself.

> Let's draw our own conclusions using logic:

Actually, you seem to draw most of your conclusions using other methods.

Perry

• Next message: Ryan Russell: "Re: GXD vs. SPF"
• Previous message: R. DuFresne: "are firewalls limited to only protecting ehternet connections?"
• Next in thread: John Nicholson: "Re: Apology - not necessary"
• Reply: John Nicholson: "Re: Apology - not necessary"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Jul 17 1999 - 07:11:48 CDT