On June 16, 2004 05:03 pm, Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN wrote: > the rpc like tendencies of icq make it not worth the trouble to manage > access to/from it. > > ~piranha ? rpc like ? > Not sure about recent versions, but with old versions you could only do > simple things like messaging when using NAT only. > If you wanted to do things like chat and/or filetransfer, you needed a > socks server. I guess this still holds. > NEC had a free socks5 server for *nix once, but stopped providing it. > It's now Permeo's (www.permeo.com) but AFAIK not free any more. If you > need it ; there's a source version on rpmfind.net. > Although there are already some answers here, the extended attributes for icq can be managed in a small home lan situation by properly configuring the clients (set the ports on which connections can be recieved to a different specific range per client) and then forward the appropriate range of ports per client from the firewall. In my case at home, I have three internal clients that are permanently forwarded. You can't filter on source address as icq -> icq transfers are client to client. For standard chatting however, nothing need be done save the initial connection out to login.icq.com and an established related rule. Some folks might find that they have to send the initial message through the servers (window clients auto fallback to this state, licq has to be told to do it) but after the first message out from behind the firewall, if the ESTABLISHED,RELATED rule is in place, chat messages work just fine. Alistair Tonner. > > > Gr, > Rob
