On Mon 19 July 2004, 6:25:14 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Is there a reason (a) >> for not choosing 110, and (b) for choosing 123? > > Whe I sert up PopFile I went by the manual and forum advice - I can't > remembver why at the moment but I'm not technical enough to have made > that decision for myself - but as I say I can't remember why I did > it. I have checked using the netstat command and there are no > listening ports numbered 110. > > So maybe I should change it back to 110 do you think? And then try > 2.12.00 again?
Well, I am using 110 successfully. When I had an anti-virus proxy (Norton AntiVirus) I had to change the Popfile port, because NAV wanted 110, so I think I used 1100 for TB! and Popfile to communicate on, and 110 for Popfile and NAV. Now that I don't have NAV, I just use 110. I would give it a go, it might work better. -- Robin Anson Using The Bat! v2.12.00 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Running [EMAIL PROTECTED] (see: www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu) No of SETI units returned: 301 Processing time: 1 years, 244 days, 21 hours. ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
