On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 04:51:04AM -0700, eric lin wrote:
> Do you know why in the html code to show photo by
> http://12.34.56.78/photo.gif or jpg"> work but
> http://www.domain.com/photo.gif or jpg"> not work?
There are several web servers running on the host that has
eric lin wrote:
Dear advancers:
Do you know why in the html code to show photo by
http://12.34.56.78/photo.gif or jpg"> work but
http://www.domain.com/photo.gif or jpg"> not work?
Do you can resolve www.domain.com on the computer?
cu thomas
highly appreciate your
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, eric lin wrote:
> Dear advancers:
>
>Do you know why in the html code to show photo by
> http://12.34.56.78/photo.gif or jpg"> work but
> http://www.domain.com/photo.gif or jpg"> not work?
>
Yes.
--
Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECT
Dear advancers:
Do you know why in the html code to show photo by
http://12.34.56.78/photo.gif or jpg"> work but
http://www.domain.com/photo.gif or jpg"> not work?
highly appreciate your help
--
Sincere Eric
www.linuxspice.com
linux pc for sale
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
telnet localhost 80
GET /file HTTP/1.0
(Thats ENTER, ENTER.)
What happens then? Look in the access.log and error.log as well.
You might want to tag a | less on the end of the telnet line, if you need
to scroll.
Try that and see what happens.
--
Brad Lay ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Systems Administr
Thomas Braun wrote:
eric lin wrote:
www:/home/fsshl# iptables -L -nv
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destinat
eric lin wrote:
www:/home/fsshl# iptables -L -nv
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (poli
Dear Bill or any linuxer:
I think what I miss is port-forwarding, (if I guess is not correct
please justify me)
hope to see your advice and hlep again, and thanks in advance
Bill Moseley wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, eric lin wrote:
www:/home/fsshl# iptables -L -nv
Chain INPUT (policy AC
www:/home/fsshl# iptables -L -nv
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 pack
I'm really not sure on that, I generally use iptables, independent of a
specific firewall package. If you are using an iptables one, try:
iptables -L -nv
This will give a dump of all the loaded rules, if that doesn't work,
well I'm not 100% up on ipchains..
Remember to CC your replies to the de
Okay, your apache bind looks fine, and if your ISP claims not to block
your port 80 traffic, then perhaps your own firewall may be causing the
problem. What are you using to do the firewall?
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 12:37:59AM -0700, eric lin wrote:
> --
>
>
Dear debian isp:
I am using Debain progeny on 2.4.20, my question in hyper link to
access my site 's photo or file work, but directly show pic by putting
a code
http://ippath/photo.jpg";> not work,
so I have to took off the http://ippath/
and copy my photo.jpg to /var/www/ di
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 05:44:48PM +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> I have a Debian router which connects to an ADSL/PPPoE line (therefore
> with a PPP interface and a MTU of 1492).
>
> Behind it are Linux machines, MS-Windows boxes and
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:37:33PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > but if NAT gw machine has MTU already set do 1492, then there is no need for
> > "NATed" clients to change MTU.
That's only if you use MSS clamping.
> > i call pppoe with "-m 1412". if this helps you...
>
> The MTU of the
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 07:44:17PM +0100,
jernej horvat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
> but if NAT gw machine has MTU already set do 1492, then there is no need for
> "NATed" clients to change MTU.
Are you sure? Because NAT does not change the packet size. If I
On Wednesday 30 January 2002 17:44, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> It seems clearly MTU-related.
but if NAT gw machine has MTU already set do 1492, then there is no need for
"NATed" clients to change MTU.
i call pppoe with "-m 1412". if this helps you...
--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
I have a Debian router which connects to an ADSL/PPPoE line (therefore
with a PPP interface and a MTU of 1492).
Behind it are Linux machines, MS-Windows boxes and MacOS toys, all
NATed (i have only one IP address) by Netfilter/iptables (router
kernel is 2.4.7). The two first categories have no pr
17 matches
Mail list logo