RE: [ALUG] Re: Re: Printing JPG and GIF files - what's the simplest way?
From: Chris Green Sent: 01 July 2005 13:33 On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:27:44PM +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:21:16PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
I have my printer drivers installed in CUPS and everything else uses those by selecting printer Oj for the Officejet and Lj for the Laserjet. Gimp seems to send postscript to the printer even though I selected one of my CUPS printers, that's a bit brain dead. The Gimp doesn't seem to have drivers for my (pretty standard) HP printers.
What printers? (model numbers please) and which distro? Printing can be "fun" sometimes so there is an element of stabbing in the dark with the info you gave us so far :)
Slackware 10.1 with CUPS.
Printers are an HP7310 and an HP1060 (I think). I have the HPLIP drivers installed for the printers and they work well in general. I can print with no problems from firefox for example, it's just that I'm having trouble getting these .GIF and .JPG files to print so they look sensible on an A4 sheet of paper.
Have you installed GimpPrint? I have a completely non-standard (as far as Linux is concerned) Canon S400 and I use CUPS and GimpPrint and its always worked straight out of the box (bet you really wanted to know that :o) ). Do you have OpenOffice installed (or anything with a decent Word Processor)? A technique I've often used is to open a blank document and then imported an image into it, then just printed the page with the image. It's a useful technique that I've used successfully under Windows, Unix and Linux at various times (assuming that you can print ok from the WP software). Regards, Keith ____________ Even before I can say it, it is no more. - Sengai
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:51:23PM +0100, Keith Watson wrote:
From: Chris Green Sent: 01 July 2005 13:33 On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:27:44PM +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:21:16PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
I have my printer drivers installed in CUPS and everything else uses those by selecting printer Oj for the Officejet and Lj for the Laserjet. Gimp seems to send postscript to the printer even though I selected one of my CUPS printers, that's a bit brain dead. The Gimp doesn't seem to have drivers for my (pretty standard) HP printers.
What printers? (model numbers please) and which distro? Printing can be "fun" sometimes so there is an element of stabbing in the dark with the info you gave us so far :)
Slackware 10.1 with CUPS.
Printers are an HP7310 and an HP1060 (I think). I have the HPLIP drivers installed for the printers and they work well in general. I can print with no problems from firefox for example, it's just that I'm having trouble getting these .GIF and .JPG files to print so they look sensible on an A4 sheet of paper.
Have you installed GimpPrint? I have a completely non-standard (as far as Linux is concerned) Canon S400 and I use CUPS and GimpPrint and its always worked straight out of the box (bet you really wanted to know that :o) ).
Do you have OpenOffice installed (or anything with a decent Word Processor)? A technique I've often used is to open a blank document and then imported an image into it, then just printed the page with the image. It's a useful technique that I've used successfully under Windows, Unix and Linux at various times (assuming that you can print ok from the WP software).
Well I hate to say it but the easiest option was to load the pictures into Visio in Windows and print from there. Simply worked 'out of the box' with no hassle. Much in the same way that printing from Firefox on Linux works, that seems to manage the handling of getting things the right size by default so why can't other applications do so well? -- Chris Green (chris@areti.co.uk) "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:16:50PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
Well I hate to say it but the easiest option was to load the pictures into Visio in Windows and print from there. Simply worked 'out of the box' with no hassle. Much in the same way that printing from Firefox on Linux works, that seems to manage the handling of getting things the right size by default so why can't other applications do so well?
Have you tried the ideas that Dan and I had for gimp yet? and what happened when you tried them? Your comment about Visio is quite funny, last time I had to get print something from Windows I had to give up after a couple of hours trying and attach the printer (Epson Sylus photo somethingorother) to a Linux box and use cups with ipp (internet printer protocol) to get it working. I still maintain that printing is the most evil thing *ever* I recently got some digiphotos printed by one of those online photo printing services [1], the prints came on *real* photographic paper with a quality far in excess of what any colour inkjet can offer, and the price was either the same or slightly more than just buying the photo paper for an inkjet printer, let alone the cost of buying ink and servicing the printer :) [1] http://www.fotoserve.com (highly recommend these guys) Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:29:43PM +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:16:50PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
Well I hate to say it but the easiest option was to load the pictures into Visio in Windows and print from there. Simply worked 'out of the box' with no hassle. Much in the same way that printing from Firefox on Linux works, that seems to manage the handling of getting things the right size by default so why can't other applications do so well?
Have you tried the ideas that Dan and I had for gimp yet? and what happened when you tried them?
Not yet, but I may well have a play tonight when I get home.
Your comment about Visio is quite funny, last time I had to get print something from Windows I had to give up after a couple of hours trying and attach the printer (Epson Sylus photo somethingorother) to a Linux box and use cups with ipp (internet printer protocol) to get it working.
Just another symptom of the same problem I think, just in reverse.
I still maintain that printing is the most evil thing *ever* I recently got some digiphotos printed by one of those online photo printing services [1], the prints came on *real* photographic paper with a quality far in excess of what any colour inkjet can offer, and the price was either the same or slightly more than just buying the photo paper for an inkjet printer, let alone the cost of buying ink and servicing the printer :)
Yes, quite a few people on the comp.periphs.printers are pointing this out nowadays. If all you want is fairly straightforward prints from photographs then it is significantly cheaper to have it done commercially than to do it yourself. However all I wanted was a print of a map to take on holiday, printed on ordinary A4 paper so I can scribble on it etc. -- Chris Green (chris@areti.co.uk) "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk> wrote:
I still maintain that printing is the most evil thing *ever* I recently got some digiphotos printed by one of those online photo printing services [1], the prints came on *real* photographic paper with a quality far in excess of what any colour inkjet can offer, and the price was either the same or slightly more than just buying the photo paper for an inkjet printer, let alone the cost of buying ink and servicing the printer :)
Still worth having a printer, but these days I'd tend towards a low-end laser printer. Those of you who saw me last weekend will know that I printed a pretty nifty t-shirt on mine. Although that was harder than I feel it should have been (printing is evil, after all and its master is http://www.thewalks.co.uk/deathpics/red3web.jpg ), I knew it looked just right and I knew the t-shirt quality before paying, which often caused problems for t-shirt printing online for me. -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:05:24PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Still worth having a printer, but these days I'd tend towards a low-end laser printer. Those of you who saw me last weekend will know that I printed a pretty nifty t-shirt on mine. Although that was harder than I feel it should have been (printing is evil, after all and its master is http://www.thewalks.co.uk/deathpics/red3web.jpg ), I knew it looked just right and I knew the t-shirt quality before paying, which often caused problems for t-shirt printing online for me.
Yup, I have a cheap (i really can't bring myself to call it low-end because equivalent kit was hundreds of pounds just a few years back) laser printer, a samsung ml-1510 it even came with a picture of tux on the box :) and cost me 50 quid. I am now running the inkjets on the cheapest carts you can buy off ebay though, although the laser is having toner refills chucked in it for 8 quid a pop now. Anyhow, how do you print t-shirts with a laser printer? I am very intrigued with this possibility :) Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk> wrote:
Anyhow, how do you print t-shirts with a laser printer? I am very intrigued with this possibility :)
Not too often, with a printer you don't mind losing if it jams (!!) and by very carefully printing onto vinyl sheets like http://www.craftycomputerpaper.co.uk/Laser%20transfer%20paper.htm Colour laser would be best, of course. -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 17:39 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk> wrote:
Anyhow, how do you print t-shirts with a laser printer? I am very intrigued with this possibility :)
Not too often, with a printer you don't mind losing if it jams (!!) and by very carefully printing onto vinyl sheets like http://www.craftycomputerpaper.co.uk/Laser%20transfer%20paper.htm
Colour laser would be best, of course.
"It can be used for many types of non fuser oil copiers or laser printers." Be warned that when doing this with a colour laser "non fuser oil" rules out a lot of Xerox/Tektronics, Lexmark, Minolta, QMS, Brother and some Epson machines. Pretty cool though, I did it years ago with the inkjet based stuff and got pretty good results, having a laser based version would yield even better results I would expect.
Hi all, I have been playing with Suse 9.3 Prof., and especially Gnome and Open Office.org 2, and I am VERY impressed. Firstly, Gnome (and likely KDE as well, I don't know) allows me to seach my other hard drive, which contains Windows XP (which I will soon be dumping now). I have just been able to copy my home accounts spreadsheet (MS Office 3 sheet workbook) from the win drive to the Linux drive, and open it in OO02 - even though it was password protected (I couldn't do that in the earlier version), and fully edit and save it. Now that's what I call power and flexibility. Also, in case you don't know, Gnome now comes with a DVD burner (although I haven't tried it yet). I'll report on that soon. I'd be glad to hear from anyone who already uses or has tried it. When I first tried Gnome I didn't like it. I loaded Gnome 2.6 'by mistake' on Suse 9.2 prof. and started to like it. So, when I installed 9.3 I decided to run gnome 2.10 as my main desktop and I really like it. I'd be interested to hear other peoples comments as I am still very new to Linux. Also, I am still in need of a couple of PC 100 (or 133) 256Mb memory cards if anyone has any for sale. This is for my second machine which only has a 128 and 64 meg strips in at the moment (P3 800). Nobody seems to want that (old) machine, so I thought I may as well put another version of Linux on it and make some comparrisons. Regards, Peter
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 16:03 +0100, Peter Hunter wrote:
When I first tried Gnome I didn't like it. I loaded Gnome 2.6 'by mistake' on Suse 9.2 prof. and started to like it. So, when I installed 9.3 I decided to run gnome 2.10 as my main desktop and I really like it.
I'd be interested to hear other peoples comments as I am still very new to Linux.
I have often heard it said that KDE is more familiar to people coming from Windows. not sure how true that is. Recently I have installed Ubuntu running Gnome onto my home machine that was running SuSE 9.1 and KDE. I did it for a change. As I have said in other posts initially I felt like Gnome was a step backwards. But gradually that feeling has passed and I quite like it now. To get the most consistent user interface I always try to run apps built for the same toolkit. So when I was on SuSE/KDE I tried to use mostly QT apps or the KDE apps (Kmail Konqueror Knode etc) and now I am trying to move over to GTK apps (Evolution, Galeon "whatever the Gnome equiv of Knode is") Certainly Evolution is a better mail client than Kmail. There are exceptions to this, amaroK is a lot better than RhythmBox and for anything other than dumping plain files on CD's I prefer to use k3b rather than the Nautilus built in CD burner. Traditionally Gnome on SuSE was a bit of an afterthought and nowhere near as polished as the KDE SuSE Desktop. But since Novell bought SuSE the Gnome option has been taken more seriously. At the end of the day it's totally down to personal preference. There are valid arguments either side of the fence and the only thing to do is keep trying the alternatives in case the grass really is greener. That was the whole reason I took SuSE off this machine to try something else for a while.
On Sunday 03 July 2005 18:30, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 16:03 +0100, Peter Hunter wrote:
When I first tried Gnome I didn't like it. I loaded Gnome 2.6 'by mistake' on Suse 9.2 prof. and started to like it. So, when I installed 9.3 I decided to run gnome 2.10 as my main desktop and I really like it.
I'd be interested to hear other peoples comments as I am still very new to Linux.
I have often heard it said that KDE is more familiar to people coming from Windows. not sure how true that is.
Recently I have installed Ubuntu running Gnome onto my home machine that was running SuSE 9.1 and KDE. I did it for a change.
As I have said in other posts initially I felt like Gnome was a step backwards. But gradually that feeling has passed and I quite like it now.
To get the most consistent user interface I always try to run apps built for the same toolkit. So when I was on SuSE/KDE I tried to use mostly QT apps or the KDE apps (Kmail Konqueror Knode etc) and now I am trying to move over to GTK apps (Evolution, Galeon "whatever the Gnome equiv of Knode is")
Certainly Evolution is a better mail client than Kmail.
There are exceptions to this, amaroK is a lot better than RhythmBox and for anything other than dumping plain files on CD's I prefer to use k3b rather than the Nautilus built in CD burner.
Traditionally Gnome on SuSE was a bit of an afterthought and nowhere near as polished as the KDE SuSE Desktop. But since Novell bought SuSE the Gnome option has been taken more seriously.
At the end of the day it's totally down to personal preference. There are valid arguments either side of the fence and the only thing to do is keep trying the alternatives in case the grass really is greener. That was the whole reason I took SuSE off this machine to try something else for a while.
Interesting that. I found Evolution to be much better than Kmail. I also find that (as far as I can tell) K3B is the only decent burner for anything other than basic stuff. I can agree with you about KDE being easy for Windows users, however, I hardly used Windows as my main computer was the Mac. I have to have a Windows setup at the moment as I have one program - that I can't de without - that won't run under WINE. It's a DataBase Library that installs from the CD onto the hard drive. It only works in Windows. I tried installing it into wine when I was running Suse 9.2 but it wouldn't work. Unlike you I haven't been around Linux long enough to get used to (or fed up with!) any flavour of linux yet, so I'll stick with 9.3 for now seeing as the time it took to download and install. Mind you, I have just donwloaded and installed ubentu 5.04 onto the P3 machine (I'll use that for experimenting). It was strange seeing a 'non-gui' installer, but still very easy and straight forward. I was impressed with the speed that it installed. The thing that struck me the most, and I guess I'll get used to this as I install more varieties of Linux, is that - although it also uses Gnome 2.10 - Gnome on Ubuntu is a lot different from Gnome on Suse. So, I'll keep having fun and playing. So far I feel that Linux is streets ahead of MS Windows, and easily as good as Mac OS X. Peter
_______________________________________________ main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 22:31 +0100, Peter Hunter wrote:
Interesting that. I found Evolution to be much better than Kmail. I also find that (as far as I can tell) K3B is the only decent burner for anything other than basic stuff.
Evolution is very good, it is leading the field in it's area and (as far as I know) is the only mail client that can talk to Exchange (I use it for this purpose at work) it cheats and uses the Outlook Web Access interface, but that's good enough for me.
I can agree with you about KDE being easy for Windows users, however, I hardly used Windows as my main computer was the Mac. I have to have a Windows setup at the moment as I have one program - that I can't de without - that won't run under WINE. It's a DataBase Library that installs from the CD onto the hard drive. It only works in Windows. I tried installing it into wine when I was running Suse 9.2 but it wouldn't work.
I think coming from a Mac platform explains why you are using Gnome, I find it more similar in terms of UI experience to OSX than KDE. k3b is pretty excellent, I find myself wishing that there was a Windows port as it beats the EasyCD Creator/Nero applications hands down.
Unlike you I haven't been around Linux long enough to get used to (or fed up with!) any flavour of linux yet, so I'll stick with 9.3 for now seeing as the time it took to download and install. Mind you, I have just donwloaded and installed ubentu 5.04 onto the P3 machine (I'll use that for experimenting). It was strange seeing a 'non-gui' installer, but still very easy and straight forward. I was impressed with the speed that it installed. The thing that struck me the most, and I guess I'll get used to this as I install more varieties of Linux, is that - although it also uses Gnome 2.10 - Gnome on Ubuntu is a lot different from Gnome on Suse.
This is usually the case, there are so many configurable variables that it is sometimes hard to tell what you are experiencing. Seemingly identical software can look VERY different depending on themes and how it was packaged. Ubuntu is very clean but lacks some of the bells and whistles of SuSE...it also lacks YaST which is sometimes helpful to new users.
So, I'll keep having fun and playing. So far I feel that Linux is streets ahead of MS Windows, and easily as good as Mac OS X.
I think the group would love to hear more of your experiences as you gather knowledge of Linux. I personally would love to hear what (if anything) you prefer on Linux to OS X. I rate OS X very highly but I am only an occasional user. For the most part I find it very enjoyable to use, but I can imagine scenarios where it's friendliness gets in the way. Forgetting the (admittedly rather good) eye candy present in OS X I think that Gnome is very close in terms of user experience. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts from a Mac user perspective.
I use Razor in conjuction with SpamAssassin on my home computer and I have two ports open in the firewall as prescribed 7, 2702 and 2703 but cloudmark.com is also, according to the logs, trying to access many other ports such as 5272, 5321, 5273 and so on. The log entries are like this: Jul 01 21:30:14 to Jul 01 21:30:14 ABORTED eth0 2 tcp packets from 66.151.150.22 (shock.cloudmark.com) to 192.168.n.n (localhost1) port 5321 (-) Are there other ports I should have open? -- Barry Samuels http://www.beenthere-donethat.org.uk The Unofficial Guide to Great Britain
Barry Samuels wrote:
I use Razor in conjuction with SpamAssassin on my home computer and I have two ports open in the firewall as prescribed 7, 2702 and 2703 but cloudmark.com is also, according to the logs, trying to access many other ports such as 5272, 5321, 5273 and so on.
According to the SpamAssassin destructions, if you're using the DCC checks you'll need UDP port 6277 open: "Also note that DCC requires that you open your firewall for DCC reply packets on UDP port 6277. DCC uses UDP packets when replying, which are blocked by most firewalls by default. As a result, it requires that you open your firewall for DCC reply packets on UDP port 6277. Here's sample firewall rules required: allow udp local gt 1023 to remote 6277 allow udp remote 6277 to local gt 1023" Try running "cddc info" from the command line. I don't have any other unusual UDP ports open and my TCP ports are the standard usual services apart from some slight unusual ones in the higher range reserved for use with cPanel which is running on my box. Regards, Martyn -- http://www.drake.org.uk http://www.drake.org.uk/hosting.html http://www.ourlittleduckling.com
On 2005.07.03 15:48, Martyn Drake wrote:
Barry Samuels wrote:
I use Razor in conjuction with SpamAssassin on my home computer and I have two ports open in the firewall as prescribed 7, 2702 and 2703 but cloudmark.com is also, according to the logs, trying to access many other ports such as 5272, 5321, 5273 and so on.
According to the SpamAssassin destructions, if you're using the DCC checks you'll need UDP port 6277 open:
I'm not using DCC - should I be?
allow udp local gt 1023 to remote 6277 allow udp remote 6277 to local gt 1023"
What's gt ? I'm going to try adding UDP 6277 to my firewall and see what happens. -- Barry Samuels http://www.beenthere-donethat.org.uk The Unofficial Guide to Great Britain
Barry Samuels wrote:
I'm not using DCC - should I be?
Ignore me on the DCC thing - not quite sure why I was thinking of DCC rather than Razor despite you mentioning Razor a fair bit. Tough week tends to make you go a bit dolally to be quite honest. Anyway. DCC is actually quite useful though, and I have that, Razor, Pyzor and Rules Du Jour running on my box and it's been a great combo so far. Getting back to Razor. This is what happens when I do a spamassassin -D --lint: debug: Razor2 is available debug: entering helper-app run mode Razor-Log: Computed user confpath from env: /root/.razor Razor-Log: read_file: 15 items read from /root/.razor/razor-agent.conf Razor-Log: Computed razorhome from env: /root/.razor Razor-Log: Found razorhome: /root/.razor Jul 03 17:54:48.501838 check[5877]: [ 2] [bootup] Logging initiated LogDebugLevel=9 to stdout Jul 03 17:54:48.502408 check[5877]: [ 5] computed razorhome=/root/.razor, conf=/root/.razor/razor-agent.conf, ident=/root/.razor/identity-rutV94Ab6W Jul 03 17:54:48.502628 check[5877]: [ 8] Client supported_engines: 4 8 Jul 03 17:54:48.502878 check[5877]: [ 8] prep_mail done: mail 1 headers=93, mime0=1376 Jul 03 17:54:48.504847 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 1 items read from /root/.razor/servers.discovery.lst Jul 03 17:54:48.513531 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 2 items read from /root/.razor/servers.nomination.lst Jul 03 17:54:48.517388 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 1 items read from /root/.razor/servers.catalogue.lst Jul 03 17:54:48.517591 check[5877]: [ 9] Assigning defaults to folly.cloudmark.com Jul 03 17:54:48.517730 check[5877]: [ 9] Assigning defaults to joy.cloudmark.com Jul 03 17:54:48.517844 check[5877]: [ 9] Assigning defaults to shock.cloudmark.com Jul 03 17:54:48.520207 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 14 items read from /root/.razor/server.joy.cloudmark.com.conf Jul 03 17:54:48.520663 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 14 items read from /root/.razor/server.joy.cloudmark.com.conf Jul 03 17:54:48.526561 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 16 items read from /root/.razor/server.shock.cloudmark.com.conf Jul 03 17:54:48.527027 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 16 items read from /root/.razor/server.shock.cloudmark.com.conf Jul 03 17:54:48.528596 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 15 items read from /root/.razor/server.folly.cloudmark.com.conf Jul 03 17:54:48.528985 check[5877]: [ 5] read_file: 15 items read from /root/.razor/server.folly.cloudmark.com.conf Jul 03 17:54:48.529175 check[5877]: [ 5] 101195 seconds before closest server discovery Jul 03 17:54:48.529442 check[5877]: [ 6] shock.cloudmark.com is a Catalogue Server srl 5084; computed min_cf=6, Server se: C8 Jul 03 17:54:48.529649 check[5877]: [ 8] Computed supported_engines: 4 8 Jul 03 17:54:48.529813 check[5877]: [ 8] Using next closest server shock.cloudmark.com:2703, cached info srl 5084 Jul 03 17:54:48.529980 check[5877]: [ 8] mail 1 has no subject Jul 03 17:54:48.530372 check[5877]: [ 6] preproc: mail 1.0 went from 1376 bytes to 1339 Jul 03 17:54:48.530555 check[5877]: [ 6] computing sigs for mail 1.0, len 1339 Jul 03 17:54:48.532156 check[5877]: [ 6] Engine (8) didn't produce a signature for mail 1.0 Jul 03 17:54:48.532415 check[5877]: [ 6] skipping whitelist file (empty?): /root/.razor/razor-whitelist Jul 03 17:54:48.532522 check[5877]: [ 5] Connecting to shock.cloudmark.com ... Jul 03 17:54:48.675632 check[5877]: [ 8] Connection established Jul 03 17:54:48.675874 check[5877]: [ 4] shock.cloudmark.com >> 36 server greeting: sn=C&srl=5084&a=l&a=cg&ep4=7542-10 Jul 03 17:54:48.676185 check[5877]: [ 4] shock.cloudmark.com << 25 Jul 03 17:54:48.676288 check[5877]: [ 6] cn=razor-agents&cv=2.72 Jul 03 17:54:48.676483 check[5877]: [ 6] shock.cloudmark.com is a Catalogue Server srl 5084; computed min_cf=6, Server se: C8 Jul 03 17:54:48.676624 check[5877]: [ 8] Computed supported_engines: 4 8 Jul 03 17:54:48.676731 check[5877]: [ 8] mail 1.0 e4 sig: xFaZIZUVHk90OQfARnenjx5BZTMA Jul 03 17:54:48.676856 check[5877]: [ 5] mail 1.0 e8 got no sig Jul 03 17:54:48.676953 check[5877]: [ 8] preparing 1 queries Jul 03 17:54:48.677076 check[5877]: [ 8] sending 1 batches Jul 03 17:54:48.677181 check[5877]: [ 4] shock.cloudmark.com << 52 Jul 03 17:54:48.677248 check[5877]: [ 6] a=c&e=4&ep4=7542-10&s=xFaZIZUVHk90OQfARnenjx5BZTMA Jul 03 17:54:48.872485 check[5877]: [ 4] shock.cloudmark.com >> 5 Jul 03 17:54:48.872584 check[5877]: [ 6] response to sent.2 p=0 I'm allowing ANYTHING outbound on my firewall, and I don't have anything set-up on the inbound rules list that match the ports you've mentioned. Also bear in mind that my machine is not NATted. Regards, Martyn -- http://www.drake.org.uk http://www.drake.org.uk/hosting.html http://www.ourlittleduckling.com
participants (8)
-
Adam Bower -
Barry Samuels -
Chris Green -
Keith Watson -
Martyn Drake -
MJ Ray -
Peter Hunter -
Wayne Stallwood