{#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{#} To reply to the author, write to Alex Kac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes, it connects successfully. I'm downloading etherpeek now.
--
Alex Kac, CEO/Developer
Innovation in Personal and Business Information Management
http://www.pocketinformant.com/
zoomzoom
> From: Jason Townsend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:28:16 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Firewall/NAT problem?
>
> {#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> {#} To reply to the author, write to Jason Townsend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Try this in Terminal:
>
> % telnet messenger.hotmail.com 1863
>
> and see if you can at least get a connection established to the server
> we're using. I guess the next step if that is successful is to take a
> look at an EtherPeek trace of what happens when trying to connect in the
> failure and success cases.
>
> -Jason
>
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at 07:54 PM, Alex Kac wrote:
>> I agree. That's why I'm perplexed. I was using NAT through a hardware
>> linksys box. I'm now using NAT through a software FreeBSD box. The
>> FreeBSD
>> box is using natd - a daemon that comes with FreeBSD 4.5. There are NO
>> firewall rules at this time.
>>
>> OS X:
>> MSN Messenger 2.1 works with this
>> MSN Messenger 3.0 works with this
>> AIM works with this
>> Yahoo IM works with this
>> ICQ works with this
>> Fire AIM/ICQ/Yahoo work with this
>> Fire MSN does NOT work at this time in this config
>> Proteus MSN does NOT work at this time in this config
>>
>> Windows:
>> Trillian works with this
>> MSN Messenger 4.6 works with this
>>
>> So since Fire and Proteus share the same MSN lib, my guess is that
>> there is
>> a bug or problem with the MSN lib. But since I know this CAN work
>> through
>> NAT and the only change has been the move to natd from the Linksys
>> box, I
>> can only assume that there is something there. Now I'm not a natd
>> expert,
>> though I DO know unix and networking fundamentals fairly well. Since I
>> don't
>> see getting the MSN lib fixed quickly, I'd rather look at what in natd
>> breaks the MSN library. But since I'm new at natd, I'm not even sure
>> what to
>> look for or possibly common issues. I'm also not sure if perhaps I'd be
>> better of downloading a better NAT daemon and using that...
>>
>> --
>> Alex Kac, CEO/Developer
>>
>> Innovation in Personal and Business Information Management
>> http://www.pocketinformant.com/
>>
>> zoomzoom
>>
>>
>>> From: "David V. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:05:21 -0400
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: Firewall/NAT problem?
>>>
>>> {#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> {#} To reply to the author, write to "David V. Baker"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>>
>>> In response to a problem email, Eric said:
>>>
>>>> Fire is not supported through any kind of firewall or natd connection.
>>>> We have tried to make sure it *might* work, but there are no
>>>> guarantees.
>>>
>>> Alex Kac said:
>>>
>>>> I not do think its a great idea to not support firewalls/natd. I
>>>> don't like the idea that I have to choose between securing my network
>>>> or keeping it open just for chat. And considering that most of the
>>>> world does use some sort of firewall/natd...well, it just doesn't
>>>> seem right.
>>>
>>> It dawned on me that most everyone is behind a NAT router these days;
>>> this cannot be a widespread problem. I am behind two NATs at home
>>> (Airport and SpeedStream PPPoE router to DSL), two at the office, plus
>>> some strict firewall rules at work. But I have never had any trouble
>>> with Fire because of NAT routers or my firewalls.
>>>
>>> I think it is because Fire and many (all?) of its various clients are
>>> "normal" clients that connect from an unprivileged high-port to a
>>> well-known destination port; the response stream from the server comes
>>> back to the source port, just like most everything. *All* NAT systems
>>> should be able to figure that out; it is fundamental functionality.
>>> (Things like peer-to-peer AIM voice-talking or file-sharing require
>>> different functionality and they are almost always hosed by NAT.)
>>>
>>> So, as long as AOL and Yahoo and whoever keep their server models the
>>> same, Fire will work through NAT routers, and it'll work through
>>> firewalls, just like a web browser or POP or telnet or any other
>>> service. I think the only thing that will cause any real trouble are
>>> firewall rules specifically designed to keep chat traffic out.
>>>
>>> And if this NAT/firewall discussion all really started because some AIM
>>> TOC servers went down today, then...umm, sorry, and uhh, *nevermind*.
>>>
>>> Dave Baker
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> David V. Baker Voice/Cell:617-331-1642 Fax: 603-806-8545
>>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.whysheep.com
>>>
>>> It's easy to downgrade people by dwelling on their
>>> weaknesses. It's harder to look at them with
>>> fresh eyes and identify their strengths -- and how
>>> they can help the organization to function.
>>> pg 32, Finding a Way To Win, Bill Parcells
>>>
>>> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>>
>>
>
>
> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>
>
>
{#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
