RE: [freenet-support] New node not working..."500 server error"from 127.0.0.1:8888.
> I never changed the browser configuration when I went from dial-up to > cable. Then again, since it is a Microsoft product, maybe it's going > around changing things behind my back and exercising more autonomy > than it should. I'll check... > All there is in LAN settings (which I assume will be used for > anything going through the network card, including cable inet) is > "automatically detect settings". There's a "bypass proxy server for > local addresses" option, but checking it would require taking off > "automatically detect settings" and setting who knows what else to > make normal Web browsing work again. 'Automatically detect settings' makes IE hail your ISP for proxy configuration and thereafter use the proxy the ISP gives you back for every single web page you are fetching from the net... Seems that the problem here is that your ISP has a broken automatic configuration script. This brokenness causes your your browser to ask the ISP:s proxy to fetch a page from itself and then send it to you.. A non-broken configuration script would make your browser ask your own machine for the page instead (and that is where it actually resides). Not using a proxy is 'normal browsing'. Just untick the 'automatically detect settings' checkbox and see if you can browse the web correctly that way.. You can always turn it back on again if it doesn't.. This feature is mostly used in enterprises, not so much for home internet connections. > Why on earth is this proving to be so complicated... *sigh* No other > p2p software I've got has had the slightest hiccup associated with > the transition to cable -- the speed boost and stabler connections > are all they seem to notice. :) Try accessing BearShares localhost web interface for instance.. Same thing ought to happen > Also, browsing locally hasn't been affected before, now that I think > of it. Several things on my system have documentation in plain-jane > HTML, notably GTKRadiant, and those render OK in IE. Seems like it > has no problem with static local content, only local services on > loopback? Most of those documentation page doesn't come with a web server serving them.. The problem has nothing to do with the actual content but rather with how it is delivered to the browser If the url is something like file:///yyy/zz.html the files are read directly from your local drive If the url is something like http:///yyy/zz.html the files are requested from a web server running on machine '' The proxy settings in IE only applies to http server connections. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Re: [freenet-support] New node not working..."500 server error" from 127.0.0.1:8888.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:36:38 -0500, Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lastly, is this port being exposed to the Internet going to pose a security risk, or is the fproxy service reasonably robust against the usual things, e.g. buffer overflow exploits. The only thing I can That's something you get for free with Java - no buffer overflow attacks possible. I wish more people understood the importance of that instead of yelling the usual "Java is slow and bloated". /me - professional Software Engineer. Extensive C++ experience, but appreciative of the features in Java. -- http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense? ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Re: [freenet-support] New node not working..."500 server error" from 127.0.0.1:8888.
On 15 Jan 2004 at 5:54, S wrote: > telnet 127.0.0.1 > > Hit Enter. When the connection opens, type: > > HEAD / HTTP/1.0 Had to blind-type this -- nothing echoed. > HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:43:59 GMT > Pragma: no-cache > Location: /servlet/nodeinfo/ > Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT > Cache-Control: post-check=0, pre-check=0 > Connection: close > Content-length: 191 > Content-type: text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 > Server: Fred 0.5 (build 5060) HTTP Servlets Bingo. Right down to the build number. > Probably transparent proxying. Yuck. Still shouldn't affect localhost, > though. Have you checked your browser configuration to see if > 66.185.84.80 has been explicitly defined as a proxy? If so, assuming IE, > is "Bypass proxy for local addresses" checked? I never changed the browser configuration when I went from dial-up to cable. Then again, since it is a Microsoft product, maybe it's going around changing things behind my back and exercising more autonomy than it should. I'll check... All there is in LAN settings (which I assume will be used for anything going through the network card, including cable inet) is "automatically detect settings". There's a "bypass proxy server for local addresses" option, but checking it would require taking off "automatically detect settings" and setting who knows what else to make normal Web browsing work again. Why on earth is this proving to be so complicated... *sigh* No other p2p software I've got has had the slightest hiccup associated with the transition to cable -- the speed boost and stabler connections are all they seem to notice. :) Also, browsing locally hasn't been affected before, now that I think of it. Several things on my system have documentation in plain-jane HTML, notably GTKRadiant, and those render OK in IE. Seems like it has no problem with static local content, only local services on loopback? Lastly, is this port being exposed to the Internet going to pose a security risk, or is the fproxy service reasonably robust against the usual things, e.g. buffer overflow exploits. The only thing I can imagine being more trouble than an exposed and exploitable service opening a port on my machine is an exposed and exploitable service whose port on my machine is reachable from every other box on the net except mine, rendering me blind to whatever's going on in there. :) ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Re: [freenet-support] New node not working..."500 server error" from 127.0.0.1:8888.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:02:22 -0500 "Paul Derbyshire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > at 127.0.0.1: in ie 6.x. I know my ISP (cable) has some sort of > wonky caching of web pages, as evidenced by intermittent random 500- > series errors I never got on dial-up and the odd out-of-date page > coming up but not when I hit "refresh". But their webcache shouldn't > affect loopback, should it? Here's a quick way to test. Fire up a command prompt, and then type: telnet 127.0.0.1 Hit Enter. When the connection opens, type: HEAD / HTTP/1.0 Then hit Enter twice. The response should look something like this: HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:43:59 GMT Pragma: no-cache Location: /servlet/nodeinfo/ Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT Cache-Control: post-check=0, pre-check=0 Connection: close Content-length: 191 Content-type: text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 Server: Fred 0.5 (build 5060) HTTP Servlets The line you're interested in is "Server: Fred 0.5 ... ." If anything other than Fred is reported as the server, then either some other application on your PC is using port or your browser is forwarding every request to a proxy. > It reveals an IP address of 24.192.41.163 This does appear to be your IP address. It shows in the mail headers, and port is open. > We have received a request from 66.185.84.80 for subscription..." Probably transparent proxying. Yuck. Still shouldn't affect localhost, though. Have you checked your browser configuration to see if 66.185.84.80 has been explicitly defined as a proxy? If so, assuming IE, is "Bypass proxy for local addresses" checked? -s ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
