On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, John Rudd wrote: > Jens Schleusener wrote: > > > > > > But "undefining" the variable "botnet_pass_trusted" I got > > > > Forgot to ask this last time: > > what do you mean "undefining"? Did you set it to "none", like the > documentation mentions? or anything else along those lines?
Ok, sorry for my incomplete mail (it was a bit late yesterday). The sentence "undefining" the variable "botnet_pass_trusted" seems a little bit vague. I tested different values also "none" but I had the impression it doesn't matter which value I set as long as I avoid one of the parsed values (any, public or private). So even using botnet_pass_trusted or (using quotation marks) botnet_pass_trusted "private" instead of botnet_pass_trusted private changed the behaviour on my system and let Botnet work. As by Dimitri the Botnet "not working"-problem on my system also appeared after the upgrade 0.6 -> 0.7. The behaviour may be correct (probably as designed) but I have overseen the new functionality. Finally (reffering to my original mail) the term 172.x.x.x was imprecise and mistakable. Concretely the concerning address is 172.21.151.21, an address out of the private address range 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix). Greetings Jens P.S.: I will sent more detailed debug information in a personal mail to John Rudd. -- Dr. Jens Schleusener T-Systems Solutions for Research GmbH Tel: +49 551 709-2493 Bunsenstr.10 Fax: +49 551 709-2169 D-37073 Goettingen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.t-systems.com/
