pop3 NAT problem?
I have a nice, reliable P90 running Potato serving as a NAT box for my home
LAN.
ethos:~ ] uname -a
Linux ethos 2.2.12 #1 Sat Sep 25 18:33:09 PDT 1999 i586 unknown
ethos:~ ] uptime
12:25pm up 148 days, 2:01, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.06, 0.02
For no apparent reason, I seem to be having a problem getting POP3 through
it. When I try a POP3 session via NAT, I get:
logos:~ ] fetchmail --all --flush --verbose --smtphost mythos pop.dnai.com
fetchmail: 5.2.3 querying pop.dnai.com (protocol POP3) at Mon, 21 Feb 2000
12:23:33 -0800 (PST)
fetchmail: POP3< +OK <9826.951164613@atlas.dnai.com>
fetchmail: POP3> USER peewee
fetchmail: POP3< +OK
fetchmail: POP3> PASS *
fetchmail: POP3< +OK
fetchmail: POP3> STAT
fetchmail: POP3< +OK 823 2694512
823 messages for peewee at pop.dnai.com (2694512 octets).
fetchmail: POP3> LIST
fetchmail: POP3< +OK
fetchmail: terminated with signal 2
The LIST POP3 command returns OK but doesn't list any messages. Trying the
same thing from ethos itself, so there's no NAT, works fine:
ethos:~ ] fetchmail --all --flush --verbose --smtphost mythos pop.dnai.com
fetchmail: 5.2.3 querying pop.dnai.com (protocol POP3) at Mon, 21 Feb 2000
12:22:05 -0800 (PST)
fetchmail: POP3< +OK <73120.951164526@titan.dnai.com>
fetchmail: POP3> USER peewee
fetchmail: POP3< +OK
fetchmail: POP3> PASS *
fetchmail: POP3< +OK
fetchmail: POP3> STAT
fetchmail: POP3< +OK 823 2694512
823 messages for peewee at pop.dnai.com (2694512 octets).
fetchmail: POP3> LIST
fetchmail: POP3< +OK
fetchmail: POP3< 1 1983
fetchmail: POP3< 2 8018
fetchmail: POP3< 3 1981
fetchmail: POP3< 4 3479
fetchmail: POP3< 5 3162
[etc...]
This seems to imply that somehow the NAT has fallen down. I don't see any
dropped packets in the firewall logs and everything else seems to be
working fine. Any ideas? Thanks!
PeeWee
--
email: peewee@scc.mi.org - useless: http://www.scc.mi.org/peewee/ - efnet: Pwe
I said you were a state of mind, I believe. I said that if you ran very swiftly
and were acceptably violent, you would be admired. - "The Era of Great Numbers"
Reply to: