[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Proxying Problems (was Re: )



Thx...will give it a try... and will post the results here for the
community....


Cheers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bolan Meek [SMTP:bolan@koyote.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, July 15, 2000 11:22 PM
> To:	CHEONG, Shu Yang (Patrick)
> Subject:	Proxying Problems (was Re: )
> 
> "CHEONG, Shu Yang (Patrick)" wrote:
> 
> > Well, I was not "blocked" when I used Explorer!!!
> 
> Perhaps Explorer kept the login:passwd for the site.  I'm not sure
> fully how it works, but it's something like cookies:  a site shall
> query the browser for a login:passwd, and if the browser doesn't
> have it cached, it shall prompt the user.  Once a  login:passwd
> is cached, the browser answers transparently.  That was a
> hassle I suffered with using Netscape to access secured sites in
> a company Intranet:  when I attempt to access by another
> login, the site still thought I was coming in on the previous.
> I had to exit Netscape, restart, and re-access the site to login
> with a different username.  I'm wondering if Explorer kept
> the login info some how, but I don't know yet if your proxy
> server requires a login:password.  Did you ever have to
> supply that when using Explorer, even once?
> 
> > ...Have yet to check with the SysAdmin/ Network guys on the proxying
> rules
> > and
> > stuff like that !!!
> 
> Well, we all wait with abated breaths.
> 
> > > > ...under Windows 95,  I can't browse using Netscape or Opera but can
> do
> > > > so using M$ Explorer (v5.0).
> > >
> > > Was that, in Netscape, using
> > > Edit->Preferences->Advanced->Proxies->Manual?
> > >
> > > > ...suggested to me using smb-NT-verify or
> > > > pam_smb to enable my Debian box to authenticate itself to the NT
> machine
> > > so
> > > > that ip streams can continue to be forwarded to the Debian box and
> not
> > > just
> > > > stop at the proxy server.
> > >
> > > If so, you'll want to look into the SAMBA suite.
> 
> BTW, I goofed in replying without editing the Subject: field.  You had
> left
> it blank.  It's better to supply a Subject: with email, especially to
> lists,
> because there may be those who are short on time, but with specific
> expertise to help with whatever intricate problem you may have.  The
> time contraints they suffer may cause them to skip over a blank or
> too-general Subject:, but they may yet take the time to answer one
> to which they knew the solution right off.
> 
> --
> 
> Bolan Meek
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GAT d s+: a C++++ UL++++ P+++ L+++ E--- W++ N++ o-- K w--
> O- M- V-- PS PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5 X R- !tv b++ DI+ D
> G e+ h---- r+++ y++++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> 
> 



Reply to: