Thanks again for the info... I tried some more and was able to get into
EFNet using irc.blackened.com:6667. I then tried UNDERnet again with my
client and, lo and behold, it works now (at least to one server)! Musta
been some problem I had during development that I never went back to verify
or work out. That is exciting.
I tried the EFNet servers you suggested and (even with mIRC) was not able to
get in through the two freei.net ones. The other two worked, showing a
connection to irc.concentric.net, actually.
DALnet typically uses port 7000 for connections, in case you have difficulty
getting in there.
I'll try and hang around a bit on channel #REBOL on EFNet/DALnet/UNDERnet
and see if there's anyone to talk with :)
Russ
----
At 09:43 AM 11/15/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> of the IRC channels on various nets for REBOL active channels. One exists
>> (i.e., is registered) on DALnet, but I've run into only one person on there
>> during my experimenting. My client works fine with DAL, but won't work with
>> UNDERnet (different protocol, and I've been unable to determine what is
>> different), and I've not been able to reach the EFNet servers you listed
>> here. (Most don't even give a ping reply.) Can you say what port they
>> listen on? Would seem reasonable to have an active IRC location for
>
>Well The protocols all are the same at least they used to be. If they
>werent a standard ircII client would not still be able to run on any other
>network and currently they do and I can also telnet and issue the commands
>by hand. You will not be able to ping most of the servers listed for good
>reason Most of those server have ICMP's filtered at the routers. The
>standard IRC port is 6667 Although it is common to have
>5555,6660-6669,&occasionally 31337 open. I personally always use 6666 or
>6665 seeing as they are 99% of the time always open ports. What problems
>are you having with connecting to the Undernet or EFNet?
>
>> PS -- The idea of a "bridge" sounds cool :), though with no activity I'm
>> not sure it serves a practical purpose.
>
>This was assuming there was traffic on any other network.
>
>
>
>
