Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 17:48:45 +1030,
> Tim wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 22:00 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> The normal reply command is not supposed to reply to lists, just the
>>> sender.
>> The normal reply command is supposed to reply to whatever's written i
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 10:26 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Lists aren't supposed to mung the reply-to header as it supposed to be
> for the sender to direct replies to a different address.
I think you'd find it hard to prove that they're not supposed to. But
whether it's desirable, or not, is ye
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 17:48:45 +1030,
Tim wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 22:00 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > The normal reply command is not supposed to reply to lists, just the
> > sender.
>
> The normal reply command is supposed to reply to whatever's written in
> the reply-to field, if
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 19:44 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:44:56 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> > If your mailer supports it, Reply-To-List is preferable to Reply-To-All
> > on mailing lists. It uses the List-* headers to figure out the correct
> > posting address.
>
>
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:25:02 +
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > You happen to know any mailers that support it? I've never seen that
> > one before. Usually just Reply works for me because the mailing
> > list has fixed up the Reply-To header, but not all lists do that.
>
> KMail has a "reply", "
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 11:44:36 pm Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:44:56 -0430
>
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > If your mailer supports it, Reply-To-List is preferable to Reply-To-All
> > on mailing lists. It uses the List-* headers to figure out the correct
> > posting address.
>
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 22:00 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The normal reply command is not supposed to reply to lists, just the
> sender.
The normal reply command is supposed to reply to whatever's written in
the reply-to field, if it exists, ignoring the from address, under those
circumstances.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 19:44:36 -0400,
Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:44:56 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> > If your mailer supports it, Reply-To-List is preferable to Reply-To-All
> > on mailing lists. It uses the List-* headers to figure out the correct
> > posting addre
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Tom Horsley wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:44:56 -0430
> > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If your mailer supports it, Reply-To-List is preferable to Reply-To-All
> >> on mailing lists. It uses the List-* headers to figure out the
Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:44:56 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>
>> If your mailer supports it, Reply-To-List is preferable to Reply-To-All
>> on mailing lists. It uses the List-* headers to figure out the correct
>> posting address.
>>
>
> You happen to know any mai
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:44:56 -0430
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> If your mailer supports it, Reply-To-List is preferable to Reply-To-All
> on mailing lists. It uses the List-* headers to figure out the correct
> posting address.
You happen to know any mailers that support it? I've never seen that
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 15:16 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Ed Greshko wrote:
> > It seems strange the often messages from you have included a CC of
> > fedora-l...@redhat.com. Since that list has been migrated to
> > users@lists.fedoraproject.org it should not be copied or used. Is there
> > somet
Ed Greshko wrote:
> It seems strange the often messages from you have included a CC of
> fedora-l...@redhat.com. Since that list has been migrated to
> users@lists.fedoraproject.org it should not be copied or used. Is there
> something in your setup that is putting in this CC automatically, or is
Hiisi wrote:
>
> Yes, office computer is behind NAT either.
> Thank you!
>
With both systems being NAT'ing firewalls where you have no
controlthe only way I can see around your issue is the "auto" double
ssh suggested previously. It still does what you do now...but it does
it transparently.
2010/3/10 NoSpaze :
> Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 19:59 -0500 schrieb Bill Davidsen:
>> Hiisi wrote:
>> > Dear list!
>> > I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
>> > ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
>> > actually I'm doing it at the mo
2010/3/10 Bill Davidsen :
> Hiisi wrote:
>> Dear list!
>> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
>> ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
>> actually I'm doing it at the moment. But I'm fancy is there a better
>> solution? Is there a possibi
It seems strange the often messages from you have included a CC of
fedora-l...@redhat.com. Since that list has been migrated to
users@lists.fedoraproject.org it should not be copied or used. Is there
something in your setup that is putting in this CC automatically, or is
it coming from some place
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 19:59 -0500 schrieb Bill Davidsen:
> Hiisi wrote:
> > Dear list!
> > I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
> > ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
> > actually I'm doing it at the moment. But I'm fancy is ther
Hiisi wrote:
> Dear list!
> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
> ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
> actually I'm doing it at the moment. But I'm fancy is there a better
> solution? Is there a possibility of not using any computer at
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 09:41 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> Alternatively, they can charge me with extra money for so called
> 'static IP'. I don't need it because I don't want to run WEB-server at
> home. I just want to access my files at home computer from lab
> computer to eliminate stresses in case I for
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:08 -0600, Rick Sewill wrote:
> I have difficulty thinking why the ISP wouldn't let you configure
> their NAT router to forward the ssh port to your host...
If they assign users random IPs each time they connect, as many ISPs do,
then they can't (easily) set up a rule to pa
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 06:41:52 am Hiisi wrote:
> 2010/3/9 Rick Sewill :
> > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:08 -0600, Rick Sewill wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:40 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> >> > 2010/3/9 Rick Sewill :
> >> My first thought is to say, talk to the ISP.
> >> The ISP should have a way fo
Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>
> [egres...@misty ~]$ ssh -t f12l bin/gothere2
> egres...@192.168.0.191's password:
> Last login: Tue Mar 9 18:31:24 2010 from 192.168.0.194
> [egres...@f12k ~]$ exit
> logout
> Connection to 192.168.0.191 closed.
> Connection to f12l closed.
> [egres...@misty ~]$
>
>
>
an
Hiisi wrote:
> Dear list!
> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
> ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
> actually I'm doing it at the moment. But I'm fancy is there a better
> solution? Is there a possibility of not using any computer at
Oh. Well forgive me for suggesting a non-open source product, but look
into Dropbox:
http://www.dropbox.com/
With this, you copy items into the Dropbox on your system, and it's
almost instantly accessible both from any other machine you install
Dropbox on, or from the https://www.dropbox.com
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 00:17 -0600 schrieb Rick Sewill:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:08 -0600, Rick Sewill wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:40 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> > > 2010/3/9 Rick Sewill :
> > > > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:49 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> > > >> Dear list!
> > > >> I would like
2010/3/9 Rick Sewill :
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:08 -0600, Rick Sewill wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:40 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
>> > 2010/3/9 Rick Sewill :
<--SNIP-->
>> > Hiisi.
>> > Registered Linux User #487982. Be counted at: http://counter.li.org/
>> > --
>> > Spandex is a privilege, not a r
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:08 -0600, Rick Sewill wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:40 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> > 2010/3/9 Rick Sewill :
> > > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:49 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> > >> Dear list!
> > >> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
> > >> ISP' NAT. I
If that's true (they want to prevent you from running a server) then get
a new ISP.
--
Chris Kloiber
On 03/09/2010 01:08 AM, Rick Sewill wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:40 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
2010/3/9 Rick Sewill:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:49 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
Dear list!
I would like to b
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:40 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> 2010/3/9 Rick Sewill :
> > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:49 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> >> Dear list!
> >> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
> >> ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
> >> actuall
2010/3/9 Rick Sewill :
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:49 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
>> Dear list!
>> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
>> ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
>> actually I'm doing it at the moment. But I'm fancy is there a better
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:49 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
> Dear list!
> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
> ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
> actually I'm doing it at the moment. But I'm fancy is there a better
> solution? Is there a poss
On 03/08/2010 01:49 PM, Hiisi wrote:
> Dear list!
> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
> ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
> actually I'm doing it at the moment. But I'm fancy is there a better
> solution? Is there a possibility of n
On 03/08/2010 03:49 PM, Hiisi wrote:
> Dear list!
> I would like to be able to ssh to my home computer located behind my
> ISP' NAT. I know, I can tunnel to it through some middle host and
> actually I'm doing it at the moment. But I'm fancy is there a better
> solution? Is there a possibility of n
34 matches
Mail list logo
