The thing is that there is no point using proxy on
"headquarters linux server" because the "remote linux
server" doesn't use tcp/ip to communicate with the
"headquarter linux server". In fact the "remote linux
server" uses typical dialup, and receives/sends data
with uucp with no tcp/ip due to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
ilias seperis wrote:
> The thing is that there is no point using proxy on
> "headquarters linux server" because the "remote linux
> server" doesn't use tcp/ip to communicate with the
> "headquarter linux server". In fact the "remote linux
> server"
Hi there,
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 ilias seperis wrote:
> I've read the FAQ.
> Obviously I didn't explain my case so well.
> I have the following setup:
> headquarters linux server -> satellite communication
> (very expensive) -> remote linux server -> windows clients
I wonder if some of the design de
> I wonder if some of the design decisions might
> benefit from review.
> Maybe if we knew more about the situation we could
> help more.
>[...]
> How expensive is the satellite link? Is it so
> expensive that it would
> be worth the cost of installing a system to transfer
> information using
> l
