I feel so dirty (heh, heh, heeeeeh)

I'm sitting here on a Doze 'puter, posting with butthook distress,
being routed through DHCP and IP masquerading on Slack 9.1 that
I configured "myself" (actually, the HOWTO writers configured it
for me), in the process learning enough network stuff that I'm
qualified to go out and troubleshoot and fix windows networks. :-)

I get such a perverse thrill seeing a Windoze comp. being served by
a Linux comp. - kind of breaks the chain, so to speak. Or maybe not.
[I can hear it now --- "RTFM 'firewall'!!!") :-) Oh, well. My mind
works in mysterious ways. ;-) ]

Cheers!
Rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rich Grise <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm sitting here on a Doze 'puter, posting with butthook distress,
> being routed through DHCP and IP masquerading on Slack 9.1 that
> I configured "myself" (actually, the HOWTO writers configured it
> for me), in the process learning enough network stuff that I'm
> qualified to go out and troubleshoot and fix windows networks. :-)

Well, sounds as if you would be qualified to even run the largest
networks, you shouldn't waste your time with some low cost M$
boxes.

BTW
What was your question again?

- --
Michael Heiming (GPG-Key ID: 0xEDD27B94)

Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
inconvenience, but I get tons of spam.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFANp3MAkPEju3Se5QRAh1EAJ0WkZkMakUXsULpa9ZAyd juoFow7ACgnrDH
0MtCGER7h7K9INtAp3JdrKw=
=vGpd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

ocuh!
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:52:46 +0100, Michael Heiming
<michael+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Rich Grise <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I'm sitting here on a Doze 'puter, posting with butthook distress,
>> being routed through DHCP and IP masquerading on Slack 9.1 that
>> I configured "myself" (actually, the HOWTO writers configured it
>> for me), in the process learning enough network stuff that I'm
>> qualified to go out and troubleshoot and fix windows networks. :-)
>
>Well, sounds as if you would be qualified to even run the largest
>networks, you shouldn't waste your time with some low cost M$
>boxes.
>
>BTW
>What was your question again?