Peek a boo I see you ... However, following the ping report below, check out the nmap report that follows. ping -c 5 209.23.49.149 PING 209.23.49.149 (209.23.49.149) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 209.23.49.149: icmp_seq=0 ttl=46 time=46.2 ms 64 bytes from 209.23.49.149: icmp_seq=1 ttl=46 time=46.2 ms 64 bytes from 209.23.49.149: icmp_seq=2 ttl=46 time=42.3 ms 64 bytes from 209.23.49.149: icmp_seq=3 ttl=46 time=40.6 ms 64 bytes from 209.23.49.149: icmp_seq=4 ttl=46 time=41.8 ms --- 209.23.49.149 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4003ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 40.663/43.490/46.270/2.342 ms, pipe 2 Chuck Hallenbeck writes: >From hallenbeck at valstar.net Sat May 4 16:00:07 2002 From: Charles Hallenbeck <hallenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Thu, 2 May 2002, Alex Snow wrote: > With comersial > software, you half to wait for a patch. > More likely you have to wait for an upgrade, and then pay for it! With commercial software, the bugs become a significant source of new revenue for the developers. -- Visit me at http://www.valstar.net/~hallenbeck The Moon is Waning Gibbous (68% of Full) _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup at braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > From: Chuck Hallenbeck <chuckh at sent.com> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > My ISP claims they do not block any other traffic or ports, only > ICMP packets, but I have an asymmetrical bandwidth that would > limit what services I could offer, and a dynamically assigned IP > as well. I guess there are workarounds for those limitations too, > but I am not interested in running accessible servers from here > right now. I think these nervous ISP's are trying to protect > their typical customers from their Windows OS problems. So we all > participate in the dumbing down of the internet. > > Would someone who can use ping please ping me and let me know if > I am here? Try 209.23.49.149 and let me know. > > Thanks
