[no subject]

Yup...I recall reading the forums as well and being completely shocked with what was said.  Thanks for jogging my memory...your description is very accurate! 


</pre>
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<hr>
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
<ul>
<li><strong><a name="00077" href="msg00077.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> james at sumners.ath.cx (James Sumners)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00162" href="msg00162.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> keith at iqtv.com (Keith Morris - IQ)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00165" href="msg00165.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> jsheets at yahoo.com (Jerald Sheets)</li></ul></li>
</ul></li></ul>
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
<ul>
<li>Prev by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00165.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00167.html">[ale] Looking for software to keep processes running.</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Previous by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00165.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00168.html">[ale] Poor support (was Smoothwall 2.0 vs IPCop 1.3.0)</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Index(es):
<ul>
<li><a href="maillist.html#00166"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
<li><a href="threads.html#00166"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
</body>
</html>