It makes sense being in both net and security, but I think the
	primary category should really be net...


		David/absolute

On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Frederick Bruckman wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> 
> > 	Would this make more sense under net than security (as it does
> > 	not need ssh, thouh it may default to it)
> 
> I hadn't thought of that. I placed it by analogy with ssh and
> ssh-ip-tunnel, so that someone browsing for ssh would see it, since
> it's typical intended use (I imagine) is to transparently wrap ssh.
>