On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:51:16PM +0100, Benedikt Klees wrote: > Moin, > > > Hi. In such a situation, the obvious thing is just to forward the FCP > > and Fproxy ports over SSH. (8481 and 8888). That's probably what I'd > > do... it would probably use less bandwidth than VNC > > Thank you very much! This was also my first idea but I thought of > files that could not be retrieved by e.g. Frost. Then I would have the > traffic of the parts I was able to receive but not the file.
I don't get it. What is the problem exactly? Frost works over FCP... Fproxy can download to a directory, in which case you'd want to share the directory too... > > Useing RDP might reduce this risk but of course uses traffic itself > and additionaly for the file transfer. > > I think I'll try both versions and monitor the traffic. I will start > with mapping the FCP and Fproxy ports. > > Thanks again! > Benedikt -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20051212/caafd01b/attachment.pgp>
