>> But from Enric his reply it's not dangerous, but anyway i dont like it that   
   >> way.   
      
   >> The reason he says it is not dangerous is because you are in this   
   >> case, only opening up those ports to receive, not to send.   
      
   >that's a bad view... it allows any and all external sources to beat on any and   
   > all of those ports to see if they can find a way in even if there is nothing   
   >actually listening on those ports... the network stack still has to handle the   
   > traffic if even only to drop it...   
      
   I still can't believe there isn't a way to get XP to work with BBBS and it's   
   web/ftp daemon just as I do in Linux, and as Rudi does with Elebbs under XP,   
   etc. (one port for each, in other words).  I'd experiment with XP my laptop   
   but my son is using it right now so I can't...  Maybe I can get another system   
   over here to play with.   
      
   In any case, what you say is true.. it's the potential of all those ports   
   being hammered for a way in, though they can't 'send'..the network stack   
   having to reject the traffic.  Though Enric doesn't seem to have any problems   
   with this.   
      
   Take care,   
   Janis   
      
   --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1   
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)