On 8/18/2011 1:32 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 08/18/2011 07:33 AM, Andre Speelmans wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Paul Allen Newell<pnewell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 8/17/2011 12:49 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >>>> I would have just duplicated the ssh rule, which works, for port 23. >>>> >>>> -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 23 -j ACCEPT >> This rule will not work. The difference being the port. 23 is for >> telnet (the protocol, not the command). You need the rule with 25, >> which would be for SMTP and the port the mailserver is probably >> listening on. > Of course. I said "23 or 25" everywhere in the mail, assuming it was clear > that "telnet 25" is a just a trick to connect to the smtp server and is > not related to the telnet port (23). > > Oh ... it may be clear to you and others that are familiar with this but I didn't know ... I just thought I could run telnet and give it a port number to use. I was aware that some ports may not like it (as I discovered with telnet <name> 22), but this is my first round of dealing with ports and I cannot begin to tell you how appreciative I am that the replies I am getting are longer rather than shorter to make sure I can understand the "why" of the suggstions. >>> telnet<name> 25 returns with No route to host >> No route to host?? > "--reject-with icmp-host-prohibited" does that. > One of the reasons I am running both telnet <name> 23 and telnet <name> 25 is to see if something changed while playing in iptables and that I didn't muck telnet instead of port 23 (the "no route to host" being my safety). I might be being overly cautious, but I do not feel I know enough to skip having sanity checks in my testing. Thanks for confirm on "No route to host" being "icmp-host-prohibited". That being said, as I look at the some of the documentation for iptables, I would have that message would have been more appropriate for "icmp-host-unreachable" ... unreachable implies "can't do" and "prohibited" implies "won't do" in my sense of langauge. Trivial point above and beyond when "No route to host" changes to "Connection refused" I need to understand why there was a change (and I am hoping to find that in some of the other emails I am going through) Paul -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
