Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 19:49 +0930, Tim wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 23:33 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > I went back through archives of my installs and found a sufficiently > > different factory-install of /etc/hosts that I wanted to post it for > > comment given your "bad idea to bodge (si

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 23:33 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > I went back through archives of my installs and found a sufficiently > different factory-install of /etc/hosts that I wanted to post it for > comment given your "bad idea to bodge (sic?) anything else into those > two lines. I checked 3

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On 8/22/2011 9:51 PM, Tim wrote: > > Have a look at a virgin hosts file, and it'll be like this: > > cat /etc/hosts > # Do not remove the following line, or various programs > # that require network functionality will fail. > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost > ::1localhost6.loca

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 14:31 +0930, Tim wrote: > Tim: > >> No matter what anybody says, and despite the setup of Fedora doing > >> it, it's a bad bad BAD idea to bodge *anything* else into those two > >> local lines. Sure, you can get away with it under *some* > >> circumstances. But you can run i

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 21:52 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > I am trying to do my homework but more importantly trying to > understand just what I need so I don't solve a problem that doesn't > need to be solved. I suppose it all depends on what you're trying to achieve. Do you need a mail serve

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

Tim: >> No matter what anybody says, and despite the setup of Fedora doing >> it, it's a bad bad BAD idea to bodge *anything* else into those two >> local lines. Sure, you can get away with it under *some* >> circumstances. But you can run into a hell of a lot of pain under >> other circumstances

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On 8/24/2011 7:26 PM, Craig White wrote: Craig: Thanks for the two emails (one in response to Tim). I am trying to do my homework but more importantly trying to understand just what I need so I don't solve a problem that doesn't need to be solved. Paul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedora

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 14:21 +0930, Tim wrote: > Ugh, a test mail has come from 127.0.0.1. You've got machine names > resolving to 127.0.0.1. Name resolution is up the spout, and it *does* > strike problems with various servers, despite the number of people who > *apparently* get away with puttin

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 22:15 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 8/22/2011 9:51 PM, Tim wrote: > > Tim: > > Thanks for your two emails. I am stepping back, going through all the > email again, and rethinking what I am trying to do and the best way to > do it. This "little exercise" was much big

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On 8/22/2011 9:51 PM, Tim wrote: Tim: Thanks for your two emails. I am stepping back, going through all the email again, and rethinking what I am trying to do and the best way to do it. This "little exercise" was much bigger than I thought and I need to do alot of learning before I come up wit

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Tim: >> This is from my old server: >> >> dnl # The following causes sendmail to only listen on the IPv4 loopback >> address >> dnl # 127.0.0.1 and not on any other network devices. Remove the loopback >> dnl # address restriction to accept email from the internet or intranet. >> dnl # >> DAEMON_

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 18:41 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Here's the hint (above), whatever mail server you end up playing with. Look at the transcript of what you get back, and do some searching against the error/status codes, rather than jus

[ENDING THREAD] Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On 8/21/2011 9:44 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > I really don't have much interest in ploughing through all of your e-mails > and all of the answers you get which just confuse the whole situation. > > All you really need to do is set smarthost on all of the LAN machines - > all machines smartho

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 18:41 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > I dug around online and found info regarding mail, port 25, and port > 587. Got a little better idea what all this is about and I decided to > try some permuations > > Though I didn't get any mail sent, I was able to get a failure mes

Re: telnet on local LAN question (progress?)

I dug around online and found info regarding mail, port 25, and port 587. Got a little better idea what all this is about and I decided to try some permuations Though I didn't get any mail sent, I was able to get a failure message back which is more info than I've seen before. In sendmail.mc,

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/20/2011 1:42 AM, Tim wrote: > > This is from my old server: > > dnl # The following causes sendmail to only listen on the IPv4 loopback > address > dnl # 127.0.0.1 and not on any other network devices. Remove the loopback > dnl # address restriction to accept email from the internet or intran

Re: telnet on local LAN question

[inline] On 8/20/2011 3:42 AM, Craig White wrote: > > If it looks something like this on your SMTP server > # netstat -an > Active Internet connections (servers and established) > Proto R-Q S-Q Local Address Foreign Address State > tcp0 0 0.0.0.0:25 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN Verified th

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/20/2011 9:17 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > Craig White wrote: >> >> >> I thought the command was 'make /etc/mail' and that it hasn't been >> necessary for about the last 10 years when restarting sendmail >> via /etc/init.d/sendmail restart (or service sendmail restart) would >> automati

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/20/2011 5:52 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > > You do have the "sendmail-cf" package installed and are running > /etc/mail/make when you're done editing your configuration, as explained > at the top of sendmail.mc, correct? > Yup, learned about that one on my first round of dealing with mail T

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Craig White wrote: > On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 05:52 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: >> Paul Allen Newell wrote: >>> On 8/18/2011 9:49 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: Your earlier email indicates that to solve the mail/mailx between machines, I need comment out that line in sendmail.m

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 05:52 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > On 8/18/2011 9:49 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > >> > >> > >> Your earlier email indicates that to solve the mail/mailx between > >> machines, I need comment out that line in sendmail.mc and I will get > >>

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 8/18/2011 9:49 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: >> >> >> Your earlier email indicates that to solve the mail/mailx between >> machines, I need comment out that line in sendmail.mc and I will get >> the results you indicated. Sure worth a try, let me give it a go. >> > Crai

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 22:14 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 8/18/2011 9:49 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > > > > > Your earlier email indicates that to solve the mail/mailx between > > machines, I need comment out that line in sendmail.mc and I will get > > the results you indicated. Sure w

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 22:14 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > I comment out the 127.0.0.1 line in sendmail.mc as suggested, did a > service sendmail restart It's *ages* since I set up sendmail, but don't you need to have a smtp line in there, rather than comment out the local loopback one? If yo

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/18/2011 9:49 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > > Your earlier email indicates that to solve the mail/mailx between > machines, I need comment out that line in sendmail.mc and I will get > the results you indicated. Sure worth a try, let me give it a go. > Craig: I comment out the 127.0.0.1 l

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/19/2011 12:15 AM, Tim wrote: Tim: Multiple replies received and I am going through them Thanks, Paul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.or

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/19/2011 1:28 AM, Rick Sewill wrote: > >> In all three cases, the return was: >> +++ >> telnet: connect to address 192.168.2.0: Connection refused > Is this a typo? Did it say > telnet: connect to address 192.168.2.10: Connection refused > Rick: Typo ... the keyboard "1" sometimes fails to co

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:31:18 PM Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 8/17/2011 10:33 PM, Andre Speelmans wrote: > > Two things: > > First, try without any firewall (service iptables stop), or enter a > > first line like: iptables -I INPUT -j ACCEPT, just so we can isolate > > the problem. > > >

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 21:05 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Part of trying to get mail / mailx running on my Linux boxes to send > mail to pnew...@cs.cmu.edu involved using telnet as a test. They > wanted me to use port 587 per their online docs. To get mail to work, > I had to edit sendmail.mc

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Tim: >> Do you really have: >>> NTPSERVERARGS=iburst >> In the /etc/sysconfig/network file? Paul Allen Newell: > Yes, that seems to be part of the factory install or it is something > that I have no idea how I added it when I installed the machines ... as > you can well imagine I have no idea wh

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 21:49 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > I am not longer certain whether the telnet testing failure is a > blocker to getting mail between machines. But it still remains a > mystery to me why I can't tell iptables "you like telnet / port 23 > inside your LAN". Your firewall ru

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 07:33 +0200, Andre Speelmans wrote: > only listening on 127.0.0.1. This is only a local interface. You > will find it on every machine (not just Linux, also Windows). It is an > IP that allows the machine to talk to itself and can not be reached by > any other machine. (For so

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Hi Paul, > Part of trying to get mail / mailx running on my Linux boxes to send > mail to pnew...@cs.cmu.edu involved using telnet as a test. They wanted > me to use port 587 per their online docs. To get mail to work, I had to > edit sendmail.mc to understand port 587. I understand, and using th

Re: telnet on local LAN question

To all those who have replied to my questions and wanted to know the "why/what" of my set-up as an aid to figuring out what I am trying to do: Though familiar with Unix/Linux for a long time, it has always been as a software developer with good sysAdmins to deal with all "that stuff". When I fi

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/18/2011 9:33 PM, Craig White wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 21:31 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: >> telnet chalupa 23 >> telnet chalupa 25 >> telnet chalupa > > first and third are essentially the same > second one because chalupa isn't listening on port 25 - at least not on > any 192.16

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 21:31 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > telnet chalupa 23 > telnet chalupa 25 > telnet chalupa first and third are essentially the same second one because chalupa isn't listening on port 25 - at least not on any 192.168.2.x address if you are on chalupa though, you can p

Re: {Disarmed} Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 21:23 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 8/18/2011 9:07 PM, Craig White wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:47 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > >> [root@yoyo ~]# netstat -anp | grep ":25" > >> tcp0 0 127.0.0.1:250.0.0.0:* > >> LISTEN 1510/s

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/17/2011 10:33 PM, Andre Speelmans wrote: > > Two things: > First, try without any firewall (service iptables stop), or enter a > first line like: iptables -I INPUT -j ACCEPT, just so we can isolate > the problem. > > If that fails, look what actually gets send on the server (tcpdump -i > eth0

Re: {Disarmed} Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 21:25 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 8/18/2011 9:23 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > On 8/18/2011 9:07 PM, Craig White wrote: > >> On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:47 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > I am not certain how the word "{Disarmed}" got into the subject ??? came

Re: {Disarmed} Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/18/2011 9:23 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 8/18/2011 9:07 PM, Craig White wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:47 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: I am not certain how the word "{Disarmed}" got into the subject ??? Paul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or c

Re: {Disarmed} Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/18/2011 9:07 PM, Craig White wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:47 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: >> [root@yoyo ~]# netstat -anp | grep ":25" >> tcp0 0 127.0.0.1:250.0.0.0:* >> LISTEN 1510/sendmail: acce >> [root@yoyo ~]# netstat -anp | grep ":23" >> [root@yoy

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/18/2011 8:59 PM, Craig White wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:15 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > of course - you have it right. Whew, that's good to know (smile) > > Of course a telnet server would generally use the well-known TCP port 23 > but generally usage of this is discourage

Re: {Disarmed} Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:47 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > [root@yoyo ~]# netstat -anp | grep ":25" > tcp0 0 127.0.0.1:250.0.0.0:* > LISTEN 1510/sendmail: acce > [root@yoyo ~]# netstat -anp | grep ":23" > [root@yoyo ~]# > +++ > > I'm staring at man netstat and

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/17/2011 10:42 PM, Andre Speelmans wrote: >>> An additional thing to check is if you are listening on port 23 (or 25). >>> Try "netstat -tnlp" and search ":23" (or ":25"). You will find the >>> name of the process listening. Check if it is listening on 0:0:0.0 or >>> just on 127.0.0.1. The 127.

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:15 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Oh ... it may be clear to you and others that are familiar with this > but > I didn't know ... I just thought I could run telnet and give it a > port > number to use. I was aware that some ports may not like it (as I > discovered with

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/17/2011 11:55 PM, James Hogarth wrote: Based on the above you have one subnet of 192.168.2.0/24 with 192.168.2.3 as the gateway. Yes I think there was some confusion when you mentioned firewall rules on your router. Traffic between hosts on the same subnet d

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/18/2011 1:32 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 08/18/2011 07:33 AM, Andre Speelmans wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Paul Allen Newell >> wrote: >>> On 8/17/2011 12:49 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: I would have just duplicated the ssh rule, which works, for port 23. -A INPU

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/18/2011 1:48 AM, Tim wrote: > > Well, your original post had two sets of IPs mentioned: > >192.168.10.x and 192.168.2.y > > Did a typo creep in, so they should have all started with 192.168.2 and > only the last quad was unique for each device? TYPO !!! My apologies, I did a proof read a

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Tim: >> Partially... Remember that he had two subnets (192.168.10 and >> 192.168.2) Paul Allen Newell: > Not certain if this is correct ... but I might not be understanding what > you mean by two subnets. > > I have up to found Linux boxes ... static 192.168.2.{10,11,12,13} > > I have a Linksy

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 08/18/2011 07:33 AM, Andre Speelmans wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: >> On 8/17/2011 12:49 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >>> I would have just duplicated the ssh rule, which works, for port 23. >>> >>> -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 23 -j ACCE

Re: telnet on local LAN question

> Not certain if this is correct ... but I might not be understanding what > you mean by two subnets. > > I have up to found Linux boxes ... static 192.168.2.{10,11,12,13} > > I have a Linksys WRT54GL (192.168.2.3) that 3 of the Linux boxes are > wired into. That WRT is connected to a larger net wh

Re: telnet on local LAN question

To all who have replied to my query/queries: Someone asked me about whether I could telnet to myself ... I can't find that email (though I know I have it since I haven't deleted any on this thread). That being said, I am not certain what exact test I was asked to run. My memory is that it had

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/16/2011 7:43 AM, Tim wrote: > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 22:04 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > > Do you really have: > >> NTPSERVERARGS=iburst > In the /etc/sysconfig/network file? > Yes, that seems to be part of the factory install or it is something that I have no idea how I added it when I

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/17/2011 10:42 PM, Andre Speelmans wrote: > > You just pinpointed why you can not telnet (port 23) or reach port 25. > Andre: I just got your two email replies and am going through them. There is one earlier test regarding 127.0.0.1 that someone requested that I want to get the results out

Re: telnet on local LAN question

inline and at bottom ... On 8/17/2011 6:36 AM, Tim wrote: > > The original poster isn't trying to "telnet," they're using the the > telnet client as a diagnostic tool for other services. correct Ping works great between all of the machines for both and .localdomain, lists the 192.168.

Re: telnet on local LAN question

>> An additional thing to check is if you are listening on port 23 (or 25). >> Try "netstat -tnlp" and search ":23" (or ":25"). You will find the >> name of the process listening. Check if it is listening on 0:0:0.0 or >> just on 127.0.0.1. The 127.0.0.1 would be wrong, and should be fixed >> in th

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/17/2011 12:49 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 08/17/2011 08:25 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > One of the interesting things is I am now getting >> "connection refused" rather than "no route to host" and I need to see >> what change I made caused that (which is also interesting as I would >> h

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > partial answers to two replies ... > > On 8/17/2011 6:07 AM, Rick Sewill wrote: >> May I suggest inserting an entry, at this spot, for mail, something like the >> following. >> -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 25 -j ACC

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/17/2011 6:07 AM, Rick Sewill wrote: > iptables entries are processed in the order found... > > [...] > I apologize for not reading your original message and going off on a > telnet/ssh > tangent in a previous email. > Rick: Thanks for the explanation. Though I had gotten a good 70% of it, th

Re: telnet on local LAN question

partial answers to two replies ... On 8/17/2011 6:07 AM, Rick Sewill wrote: > May I suggest inserting an entry, at this spot, for mail, something like the > following. > -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT > The goal of the previous line is to jump to "ACCEPT" for any

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 08/17/2011 08:25 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > I have been trying what I think is the correct edit in all permuations I > can think of ... as in: > +++ > iptables -I INPUT -{s,d} > 192.168.2.{10,11} -p tcp -{destination,source}-port telnet -j ACCEPT > +++ I would have just duplicated the s

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Tim: >> That's a rather complex explanation, which sounds like you're giving >> each machine a unique hosts file, where their own hostnames are written >> differently than the other machines on the LAN. I wouldn't do that. Andre Speelmans: > It sounds to me quite normal what he says. > Every host

Re: telnet on local LAN question

> My iptables is the default per F14 installation: > +++ > # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.9 on Tue Aug 16 22:13:30 2011 > # Used command "iptables-save > iptables_F14_ORIGINAL_yoyo" > *filter > > :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] > :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [9950:627381] > iptables entries ar

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/16/2011 10:51 PM, Andre Speelmans wrote: I have been going through all the responses I got so far and am now in process of going through this. I can't test the 127.0.0.1 as I've got my systems somewhat horked trying to sort things out ... after this email I am backing everything up to "fac

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Hi Tim, > That's a rather complex explanation, which sounds like you're giving > each machine a unique hosts file, where their own hostnames are written > differently than the other machines on the LAN.  I wouldn't do that. It sounds to me quite normal what he says. Every host has a hosts-file wh

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Thanks to everyone for replies ... lot of information that I need to learn about before I can test. I wanted to make sure I got this "thanks" out now rather than waiting for me to sort through it all. Paul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 22:04 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Each machine has a /etc/hosts looking like (where is the machine > name and is any other machine: > +++ > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomainlocalhost .localdomain > localhost4 > ::1 localhost6.localdomain6localhost6 .

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 06:11 -0500, Rick Sewill wrote: > On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:04:57 AM Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > Greetings > > > > I am trying to figure out how to get communication between my F14 boxes > > on a local wired LAN. The best test case I can come up with to prove > > that I

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 22:04 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Greetings > > I am trying to figure out how to get communication between my F14 boxes > on a local wired LAN. The best test case I can come up with to prove > that I don't know what I am doing wrong is telnet. > > Each machine has a

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:04:57 AM Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Greetings > > I am trying to figure out how to get communication between my F14 boxes > on a local wired LAN. The best test case I can come up with to prove > that I don't know what I am doing wrong is telnet. > <...snip...> > Pin

Re: telnet on local LAN question

You say you tried telnet to port 25 at , have you tried it to the IP-address as well? It seems unlikely this will work, as ping to resolves fine, but just to be sure. On other, is there actually a mailserver listening on port 25? Is there a firewall on or on ? If needed you can always use tcpdum

Re: telnet on local LAN question

On 8/15/2011 11:13 PM, James Hogarth wrote: > > > > It seems that the telnet problem is a simpler one than the mail/mailx > > and if I can at least get telnet working, then I am closer to getting > > mail/mailx working. > > > > Any suggestions? > > 1) Why telnet? SSH is much more secure and should

Re: telnet on local LAN question

> It seems that the telnet problem is a simpler one than the mail/mailx > and if I can at least get telnet working, then I am closer to getting > mail/mailx working. > > Any suggestions? 1) Why telnet? SSH is much more secure and should work out the box. 2) What exactly are you trying to accompli

Re: telnet on local LAN question

[no content from sender in this message?] On 8/15/2011 11:09 PM, James Hogarth wrote: Sent from Android mobile On Aug 16, 2011 6:04 AM, "Paul Allen Newell" > wrote: > Greetings > > I am trying to figure out how to get communication between my F14 boxes > on a local

Re: telnet on local LAN question

Sent from Android mobile On Aug 16, 2011 6:04 AM, "Paul Allen Newell" wrote: > Greetings > > I am trying to figure out how to get communication between my F14 boxes > on a local wired LAN. The best test case I can come up with to prove > that I don't know what I am doing wrong is telnet. > > Each

telnet on local LAN question

Greetings I am trying to figure out how to get communication between my F14 boxes on a local wired LAN. The best test case I can come up with to prove that I don't know what I am doing wrong is telnet. Each machine has a /etc/hosts looking like (where is the machine name and is any other mac