The only think that I said about my potential TS server was that it
would not connected to a LAN. I think you must be confusing me with some
other posters: "You keep posting the same questions over and over as if
you will finally get the answer you want to hear. Yet you keep getting
the same answers, not just from me, but others as well." I've been
posting in this ng for a day or two, but asking for the same answer over
and over? No. The only interchange I've had with you is in this thread,
where you've not communicated much of anything to me that was related to
my or the OPs questions. On the other hand, today in this thread Laythos
articulated his stance on how to sec a site like I've asked for; at
least I think I understood him.

It's obvious that you know your stuff and contribute a lot here. But I
don't think this particular thread is going to go into your Best Threads
of 2005 scrapbook?

In article <edgiGZzBGHA.4016@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,
jeff@sbcgatekeeper.com says...
> I'm not kicking sand but when something is explained over and over it gets
> very frustrating saying the same thing to the same people. You keep posting
> the same questions over and over as if you will finally get the answer you
> want to hear. Yet you keep getting the same answers, not just from me, but
> others as well. so I guess you can take it as you will. By the way, I'm
> responding your comments not the OP. I'm not trying to be a jerk but
> obviously it came across that way. I just don't know how to explain it any
> more clearly. Don't expose your internal network to the internet.
>
> Jeff Pitsch
> http://www.sbcgatekeeper.com
> Your Terminal Services Security
>
> "kiln" <kiln@brick-like.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e14a50be8c71faf98999e@msnews.microsoft.c om...
> >I want to provide a direct line into my LAN? How do you derive that? Or
> > the OP? He specifically said they don't need LAN access.
> >
> > My original comments to you were an expression of puzzlement that you
> > basically trashed the OP for asking he was right in thinking that the
> > vpn part of a client's current setup should be maintained. I'm not
> > really sure if you're reading the posts carefully; the OP was resisting
> > a client's suggestion, checking it out. You responded like the OP had
> > already flung a LAN wide open to the internet. There is a major
> > disconnect between what the OP said and what you responded to. You may
> > know a lot about TS etc, but it doesn't mean that anyone asking
> > questions here deserves to have sand kicked in their face.
> >
> > In article <eSpf5IyBGHA.2644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> > jeff@sbcgatekeeper.com says...
> >> Most companies do not host their webservers from their internal network.
> >> This is not a hard concept to grasp. Your wanting to provide a direct
> >> line
> >> to your internal network. Companies do not do that (typically). It is a
> >> very bad security measure. Do you seriously not see the implications in
> >> that? Do you not understand that their are things called DMZ's where
> >> webservers reside? Nothing is invulnerable but your going out of your
> >> way
> >> to make it easier for someone to get to your internal network. Why woul
> >> dyou do that? A solution even as simple as 2xLoadbalancer is still
> >> better
> >> than what your suggesting.
> >>
> >> Jeff Pitsch
> >> http://www.sbcgatekeeper.com
> >> Your Terminal Services Security Website
> >>
> >> "kiln" <kiln@brick-like.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1e1472eaa5ca38f498999c@msnews.microsoft.c om...
> >> > Your comments confuse me, and they are in the vein of other comments