David Douthitt wrote: > > On Saturday 18 May 2002 11:14 am, Stephen Lee wrote: > > > I tunnel imap and smtp all the time except I use stunnel.
See the bottom of my response, if the other ssh ideas don't work. > > Presumably you are pointing your host1 mail client to localhost:110 <snip> > > Note that ssh itself works - but the tunnel doesn't. > > It wouldn't have to do with the fact that the tunnel is from port 143 > to port 143 would it? I thought that would work for anything i.e. say, 80 to 80, etc. Perhaps ssh -g option? http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/sshvnc.html I always liked the ssh description on the VNC site. Please see the "More advanced use" section at the bottom of the page. They have a configuration that looks like yours. They used ssh -g -L 5901:windows2:5900 linux2. This quote was troubling "...but remember that connections between snoopy and third machine will not be encrypted..." >From your original post: > I've the following configuration: > [host1/ssh]---->[Oxygen/Masq/PPP]-->[ISPDialup/PPP]---->[host2/ssh] Perhaps -C or +C? The VNC ssh "Compression" section has this quote. It may apply to you because of ppp? "SSH has another advantage. It can compress the data as well. This is particularly useful if the link between you and the server is a slow one, such as a modem..." Just another thought....I was playing with ssh internally. I was testing another firewall. I was racking my brain until I realized that the firewall rules were blocking the RFC 1918/1627/1597 addresses. It sounds like you already took care of that issue, however. > Note that ssh itself works - but the tunnel doesn't. Last idea...perhaps you are experiencing the reason cipe and I guess stunnel were developed: http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/tcp-tcp.html. Please see the "Practical experience" section. "The whole problem was the original incentive to start the CIPE project, because I used a PPP over SSH solution for some time and it proved to be fairly unusable. At that time it had to run over an optical link which suffered frequent packet loss, sometimes 10-20% over an extended period of time. With plain TCP, this was just bearable (because the link was not congested), but with the stacked protocols, connections would get really slow and then break very frequently." I hope the ideas help, Greg Morgan _______________________________________________________________ Hundreds of nodes, one monster rendering program. Now that's a super model! Visit http://clustering.foundries.sf.net/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
