From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michel Banguerski <Michel.Banguerski@laposte.net>
Subject: Re: Syncookie firewall
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:47:22 +0200
Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.samba.org
Message-ID: <3D00812A.7000106@laposte.net>
References: <20020606020322.05BF64258@lists.samba.org> <15615.36281.187120.257236@isis.cs3-inc.com> <200206061932.04510.hno@marasystems.com> <3D007B24.9010804@laposte.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netfilter-devel-admin@lists.samba.org>
To: netfilter-devel@lists.samba.org
Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.samba.org
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.samba.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter-devel@lists.samba.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.samba.org/listinfo/netfilter-devel>,
	<mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.samba.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.samba.org/listinfo/netfilter-devel>,
	<mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.samba.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/netfilter-devel/>
List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org

Michel Banguerski wrote:
[....]

>
> BTW: I'm not 100% sure but it seems to me that at least inversion 4.1
> Checkpoint FW1 was rejecting by default packets with *ANY* TCP
> option , and people were "happy" with that  :-)
> (of course vendors lasyness is ont a good reason for doing bad design)
>
Ooops ! It was *IP* options, not *TCP*.
I'm sorry, plz don't falme ...

Regards
Michel