Re: Stupid Telnet question.

1998-12-11 Thread stick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I don't think this is it. > > I've tried telnetting to other ports on this server from the workstation > > in question. Ports w/ a listener connect, ports w/o a listener say > > Connection refused. Telnet's port says no route to host. > > Ha

Re: Stupid Telnet question.

1998-12-10 Thread stick
Keith Beattie said > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I've seen this before, but don't remember what I did to make it work. > > Have a remote user wanting access to a Linux system. That user used > > to just telnet with no problem. > > > > Now they are getting: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: telnet 205

Re: Stupid Telnet question.

1998-12-09 Thread Keith Beattie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I've seen this before, but don't remember what I did to make it work. > Have a remote user wanting access to a Linux system. That user used > to just telnet with no problem. > > Now they are getting: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: telnet 205.242.10.73 > Trying 205.242.10.73..

Re: Stupid Telnet question.

1998-12-08 Thread Pere Camps
Chuck, > Now they are getting: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: telnet 205.242.10.73 > Trying 205.242.10.73... > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host > > But I can do a ping and a traceroute from fuller to the Linux host. > At this point I've spent so much time on it I'm getting frustra

Stupid Telnet question.

1998-12-08 Thread stick
Howdy all! I've seen this before, but don't remember what I did to make it work. Have a remote user wanting access to a Linux system. That user used to just telnet with no problem. Now they are getting: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: telnet 205.242.10.73 Trying 205.242.10.73... telnet: Unable to connect to