On 04/01/2012 05:51 AM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> With the surge at work right now I have not really had much of a chance to try
> anything. I have a work around in place via another device so one more hour
> sleep
> is much more important right now.
>
> This one will back burner for a couple of day
On 3/31/2012 6:46 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/31/2012 11:23 AM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
Yes, NAT works quite well.
So, have you been able to work out the problem? Not clear that you've made any
progress.
With the surge at work right now I have not really had much of a chance
to try anything
On 03/31/2012 11:23 AM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> Yes, NAT works quite well.
So, have you been able to work out the problem? Not clear that you've made any
progress.
--
Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You
may both
be wrong. -- Dandemis
--
users maili
On 03/31/2012 03:04 AM, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 20:21 -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
Yeah, I know. Why do you think I capped stupid. Strictly done by an
IDIOT lawyer (BIRM).
Well, if you do need to provide IP information for debugging, despite
that, you've now let people know that they
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 20:21 -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> Yeah, I know. Why do you think I capped stupid. Strictly done by an
> IDIOT lawyer (BIRM).
Well, if you do need to provide IP information for debugging, despite
that, you've now let people know that they can use your headers. ;-)
Some
On 03/31/2012 11:23 AM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 07:25 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 03/30/2012 03:58 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
>>> I will check when I get home in the morning. I hide the IP due to a STUPID
>>> company
>>> security policy!
>> One other thing
>>
>> I think I can assum
On 03/30/2012 07:25 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/30/2012 03:58 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
I will check when I get home in the morning. I hide the IP due to a STUPID
company
security policy!
One other thing
I think I can assume that your eth0 interface is your Internet facing interface
and
On 03/30/2012 09:05 AM, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 00:58 -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
I hide the IP due to a STUPID company security policy!
Which, unless you post through an anonymiser, is showing in your message
headers on each and every email that you send, anyway. Have a look
through
On 03/30/2012 03:58 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> I will check when I get home in the morning. I hide the IP due to a STUPID
> company
> security policy!
One other thing
I think I can assume that your eth0 interface is your Internet facing interface
and
that it has an assigned IP address fro
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 00:58 -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> I hide the IP due to a STUPID company security policy!
Which, unless you post through an anonymiser, is showing in your message
headers on each and every email that you send, anyway. Have a look
through your message headers, and you'll see
On 03/30/2012 12:16 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/30/2012 02:58 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
On 03/19/2012 02:47 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/20/2012 01:56 AM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
Good summation. I also did not think I had made any changes at all but somehow
I
must have inadvertently done so. The
On 03/30/2012 02:58 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 02:47 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 03/20/2012 01:56 AM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
>>> Good summation. I also did not think I had made any changes at all but
>>> somehow I
>>> must have inadvertently done so. The point being that I do not kno
On 03/19/2012 02:47 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/20/2012 01:56 AM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
Good summation. I also did not think I had made any changes at all but somehow
I
must have inadvertently done so. The point being that I do not know what if any
changes I may have stumbled into!
For the ca
On 03/20/2012 01:56 AM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> Good summation. I also did not think I had made any changes at all but
> somehow I
> must have inadvertently done so. The point being that I do not know what if
> any
> changes I may have stumbled into!
For the case of not being able to access th
On 03/19/2012 02:52 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/19/2012 05:42 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
It started as trying to access inbound for the two ports in question. It has
now
morphed into connecting either way on anything. I am about to the point that I
am
going to start saving website and Apache
On 03/19/2012 05:42 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> It started as trying to access inbound for the two ports in question. It has
> now
> morphed into connecting either way on anything. I am about to the point that
> I am
> going to start saving website and Apache configs and rebuild the darn server!
On Mon, 03/19/2012 02:19 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 05:02 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> > This takes a restart from scratch!
> >
> > My base Network setup was a wired Network which got it's DHCP from a Linksys
> > Wireless gateway. The WAN connection to the Linksys was through a Fedora
On 03/19/2012 05:02 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> This takes a restart from scratch!
>
> My base Network setup was a wired Network which got it's DHCP from a Linksys
> Wireless gateway. The WAN connection to the Linksys was through a Fedora 14
> Server.
>
> I have two Servers both of which have a Fi
This takes a restart from scratch!
My base Network setup was a wired Network which got it's DHCP from a Linksys
Wireless gateway. The WAN connection to the Linksys was through a Fedora 14
Server.
I have two Servers both of which have a Fixed Routeable address from my ISP. I
was working just
On 03/19/2012 12:21 PM, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> I need to use Ports 27177 and 27178 but, every Port Checker I can find says
> they
> are blocked.
>
> My iptables setup ( for ) now is:
>
> Incoming Packages- Accept
> Forwarded Packets- Accept
> Outgoing Packets- Accept
>
> The way I understan
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 09:21:03PM -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> I need to use Ports 27177 and 27178 but, every Port Checker I can find
> says they are blocked.
You need to explain a bit more about your setup. What does the network you're
on look like, from which system to what system are you tr
I need to use Ports 27177 and 27178 but, every Port Checker I can find
says they are blocked.
My iptables setup ( for ) now is:
Incoming Packages- Accept
Forwarded Packets- Accept
Outgoing Packets- Accept
The way I understand it, that means NO Ports should be blocked. Am I
barking up
22 matches
Mail list logo
