On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:45:35 -0500 (EST), William Hooper wrote: >>> I don't know what your problem is, but can confirm >>> that VNC works as you set it up (both sides natted). >>> I use this extensively... > > Ditto.
Good enough. So we can now rule out any form of NAT as being the problem. Not going uphill. ;) > I knew how to increase debugging, but I'm drawing a blank... Ah, > here it is: > > -log <logname>:<destination>:<level> > > There's more info there as to the values. How does one start a server in service-mode with command line parameters? ;) (I'll turn it into a user-mode server temporarily for troubleshooting, I just wanted to point that out =) Side note: When I tried this from _vncviewer_ before, I didn't get EventLog as a valid destination in the --help, and all the values of <file> i tried exploded in my face. I just now tried -log *:EventLog:99 from vncviewer, and while it doesn't SAY it's doing anything, it did log some things. I'll try that tomorrow and see if it works, but that might want to get put in to fix at some point. It would've been nice to know that, although admittedly, that *is* what "beta" means, eh? =) Is there a known value for the "level" that will log More Information Than I Want(tm)? That doesn't seem to be documented either. > Since I've seen wierder things... what happens if you use the > hostname > (instead of localhost) in the tunnel? Or forward to another > machine? I don't forward to localhost; I *do* forward directly to the other machine's 5900, with the hostname specified in the tunnel. But I have tried it both ways (localhost:5900 -> localhost:5900) and (localhost:5900 -> BOX_1:5900), and it gets the same results. Fairly predictable, unfortunately. -- Derek _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
