-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There are definitely those that DO fake replies. Mine is bad enough to
accept SSH logins, which is a real problem since it allows you hand over
the password to one of your machines if you aren't careful.
=R
Fanen Ahua wrote:
> I suppose the root dns
I suppose the root dns servers retain static IPs? is it not possible to
compare something to a hardcoded IP of a root dns server?
Secondly, the captive portals I've come across (Microtik) don't really
"fake" ping replies, I think they return valid errors (One says
"destination network forbidden").
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Ryan Novosielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The big question I have is "What does Vista do?" Vista has a feature
> > where it _does_ show a little globe over the device icon in the system
> > tray when it has determined that you are connected to the Internet,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 11:52 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
>>> This would be problematic at best, how would NM know the difference?
>>> The Captive portals work by intercepting all the traffic and in theory
>>> work transparently.
What about using STUN servers? They are already up for messageingservices.
And let a program handle it, put the information up on dbus and let
networkmanager
see if it exists.
Sounds simple but I could be wrong.
/Martin
Den 2008-04-04 22:25:07 skrev Martin Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I ad
I address each of these issues with short reference quotes rather than
quoting the entire previous emails.
> 1) Captive portals ...
> 2) pinging google/root-dns/whatever ...
> 3) page-scraping google/yahoo/whatever ...
> 4) ARP-ing a known MAC ...
> 5) Proxies: pretty much explanatory ...
The iss
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 15:35 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 11:52 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
> > > This would be problematic at best, how would NM know the difference?
> > > The Captive portals work by intercepting all the traffic and in theory
> > > work transparently. I am
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 11:52 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
> > This would be problematic at best, how would NM know the difference?
> > The Captive portals work by intercepting all the traffic and in theory
> > work transparently. I am actually setting up one using the Captive
> > Portal on Aruba
> This would be problematic at best, how would NM know the difference?
> The Captive portals work by intercepting all the traffic and in theory
> work transparently. I am actually setting up one using the Captive
> Portal on Aruba and also testing one Consentry switch right now and I
> could
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Martin Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I tried doing a search in the archives to see if these problems/ideas
> had been talked about in this mailing list before. I failed to find
> anything (maybe I used the wrong terms)
>
> Anyway, I have 2 t
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Matt Burkhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Forgive me if this has already made the rounds
>
> I love NM - it's amazing how it works. My only issue is when someone in my
> vicinity turns on their wireless network called "linksys". Mine is called
> "matthewb
Forgive me if this has already made the rounds
I love NM - it's amazing how it works. My only issue is when someone in
my vicinity turns on their wireless network called "linksys". Mine is
called "matthewboh" if that makes a difference.
Anyway, I have used a network called "linksys" before
De: Fanen A.
Enviado el: vie 04/04/2008 0:56
Para: Martin Owens
CC: networkmanager <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Asunto: Re: Network Manager Wifi thoughts
>I think that this kind of indication about the reachability of the
wider "internet" is quite useful.
I agree also to
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Fanen A. wrote:
>
>>> If we're talking methods then it could check that the dns ip addresses
>>> it's been given are valid, or it could check a number of things. http
>>> site availability is just one of them.
>
> How about a query
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Fanen A. wrote:
>> If we're talking methods then it could check that the dns ip addresses
>> it's been given are valid, or it could check a number of things. http
>> site availability is just one of them.
How about a query to a root DNS server? If you can reach DNS, you are
I think that this kind of indication about the reachability of the
wider "internet" is quite useful. It's one thing to be connected to a
network, which is what you want quite often, but I also think it is
even more likely that you want to be connected to the internet via a
particular network or acc
Thanks for your reply,
> - The status of my network connection has nothing to do with whether the
> network I'm connected to can access google.com (or any other arbitrary
> domain). Networks without internet connectivity are as valid a use case
> an any other.
In parlance I agree, it's techni
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 02:01 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
> Thought 2 is the problematic difference between being connected to the
> wifi network (or ethernet network) and actually being online. I got
> court out today because the Tend City wifi public network required
> that you agree to the terms an
Hi everyone,
I tried doing a search in the archives to see if these problems/ideas
had been talked about in this mailing list before. I failed to find
anything (maybe I used the wrong terms)
Anyway, I have 2 things to talk about. The first is the auto connect
to wifi networks; I've had the networ
19 matches
Mail list logo
