Fresh install of current version of Synchronet. While I can connect with no problems to it when using an internal IP address, I can not connect if III use the external address presented by the router. I have added synchronet to the firewall rules, opened port 23 and even attempted to connect with the firewall disabled. Other "remote" operatuions, such as Teamviewer and Remote Utilities work with no problems
Fresh install of current version of Synchronet. While I can connect with no problems to it when using an internal IP address, I can not connect if III use
the external address presented by the router. I have added synchronet to the
firewall rules, opened port 23 and even attempted to connect with the firewall
disabled. Other "remote" operatuions, such as Teamviewer and Remote Utilities
work with no problems
Any suggestions? Thanks: Thom LaCosta
//Hello All,//
Fresh install of current version of Synchronet. While I can connect with no problems to it when using an internal IP address, I can not connect if III use the external address presented by the router. I have added synchronet to the firewall rules, opened port 23 and even attempted to connect with the firewall disabled. Other "remote" operatuions, such as Teamviewer and Remote Utilities work with no problems
Any suggestions? Thanks: Thom LaCosta
If you have a domain name associated with it, I would go to https://www.dynu.com/
and create a free account. They will assign you a new set of DNS records that should
take you right to your site.
You would just have to edit the DNS records in your Control Panel where the domain
name resides to the ones they assign you.
They also provide a free software download that will keep the IP associated with it up to
date in case it changes for any reason.
Mike Dippel
//Hello All,//
Fresh install of current version of Synchronet. While I can connect with no problems to it when using an internal IP address, I can not connect if III use the external address presented by the router. I have added synchronet to the firewall rules, opened port 23 and even attempted to connect with the firewall disabled. Other "remote" operatuions, such as Teamviewer and Remote Utilities work with no problems
Any suggestions? Thanks: Thom LaCosta
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Another Random *WinPoint* Origin! (1:153/7715.25)
¨ Synchronet ¨ Vertrauen ¨ Home of Synchronet ¨ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
//Hello All,//
Fresh install of current version of Synchronet. While I can connect with no problems to it when using an internal IP address, I can not connect if III use the external address presented by the router.
I have added synchronet
to the firewall rules, opened port 23 and even attempted to connect with the firewall disabled. Other "remote" operatuions, such as Teamviewer and Remote Utilities work with no problems
Any suggestions? Thanks: Thom LaCosta
Re: RE: Connection Refused
By: Mike Dippel to Thom LaCosta on Mon Feb 27 2023 10:01 am
If you have a domain name associated with it, I would go to https://www.dynu.com/
and create a free account. They will assign you a new set of DNS recor that should
take you right to your site.
You would just have to edit the DNS records in your Control Panel where domain
name resides to the ones they assign you.
They also provide a free software download that will keep the IP associ with it up to
date in case it changes for any reason.
Mike Dippel
will that make his bbs connectable?
---
Works for me. I run my Mystic system from home and get a lot of action (most of it bots) but it does work. Just using a domain name gets them in without having to add anything else to the string like synchro.net or whatever.
Fresh install of current version of Synchronet. While I can connect with no problems to it when using anYour router should have an option for "Port Forwarding", so if you "telnet" to your external IP you need to make sure your router routes any requests for Port 23 (telnet://yourip) to the correct computer on your network.
internal IP address, I can not connect if III use the external address presented by the router.
I have added
synchronet to the firewall rules, opened port 23 and even attempted to connect with the firewall disabled.
Other "remote" operatuions, such as Teamviewer and Remote Utilities work with no problems
If you have a domain name associated with it, I would go to https://www.dynu.com/ and create a free account. They will assign you
a new set of DNS records that should take you right to your site.
You would just have to edit the DNS records in your Control Panel where the domain name resides to the ones they assign you.
They also provide a free software download that will keep the IP associated with it up to date in case it changes for any reason.
Fresh install of current version of Synchronet. While I can connect with no problems to it when using an internal IP address, I can not connect if III use the external address presented by the router. I have added synchronet to the firewall rules, opened port 23 and even attempted to
Use tools like this to see if your ports are remotely accessible: http://vert.synchro.net/scanmyports.ssjs
Aside: If you're on a residential (especially cable) internet
provider connection, many/most providers block common server ports
from inbound connections. Try a higher/alternate port, such as 2323
and see if that works instead... you can probably just change the
port forward in your router to listen on 2323 and forward to the host
on 23, so you don't need to change the BBS's config.
Sorry to hijack. I may have this same problem. Port 23 is not letting traffic in. I know all routers are different, but in a generic way, how do you do this?
Sorry to hijack. I may have this same problem. Port 23 is not letting traffic in. I know all routers are different, but in a generic way, how do you do this?
Nightfox wrote to Grease <=-
If port 23 isn't letting people through, maybe your ISP is blocking
that port, I'd guess.
Nightfox wrote to Grease <=-
If port 23 isn't letting people through, maybe your ISP is blocking that port, I'd guess.
I hope not. It's bad enough having ISPs blanket-block SMTP, if they
start blocking telnet that would really suck.
If port 23 isn't letting people through, maybe your ISP is
blocking that port, I'd guess.
I hope not. It's bad enough having ISPs blanket-block SMTP, if they
start blocking telnet that would really suck.
i can understand why they would block it. if you have residential you should not be running servers.
MRO wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
If port 23 isn't letting people through, maybe your ISP is blocking that port, I'd guess.
I hope not. It's bad enough having ISPs blanket-block SMTP, if they
start blocking telnet that would really suck.
i can understand why they would block it. if you have residential
you should not be running servers.
I hope not. It's bad enough having ISPs blanket-block SMTP, if they
start blocking telnet that would really suck.
i can understand why they would block it. if you have residential
you
should not be running servers.
Why is that? Running a BBS is just a hobby for us, and our BBS is technically a server.
Why is that? Running a BBS is just a hobby for us, and our BBS is
technically a server.
because what you are buying isnt intended to be used in that way.
that's why some isps block ports. that's why most of the residential ips are on spam block lists. so you cant spam people by running an email SERVER at home.
anyways, if you are running a server you probably should buy business internet access.
anyways, if you are running a server you probably should buy business internet access.
My BBS is a hobby. I'm not running a business from home.
My BBS is a hobby. I'm not running a business from home.yeah but you are providing services to other people and doing something out of the norm. so that's how they see it.
If port 23 isn't letting people through, maybe your ISP is
blocking that port, I'd guess.
I hope not. It's bad enough having ISPs blanket-block SMTP, if they
start blocking telnet that would really suck.
i can understand why they would block it. if you have residential you should not be running servers.
If port 23 isn't letting people through, maybe your ISP is
blocking that port, I'd guess.
I hope not. It's bad enough having ISPs blanket-block SMTP, if
they start blocking telnet that would really suck.
i can understand why they would block it. if you have residential
you should not be running servers.
Why is that? Running a BBS is just a hobby for us, and our BBS is technically a server.
The only reason I can think why we "shouldn't run servers" with residential internet is because ISPs would want to make more money by charging more for "business" internet service, which doesn't have the restrictions that their residential internet service has.
I actually had a jerk at an ISP try to tell me providing telnet access to my BBS was providing their internet to others who telnet'ed in to my BBS! What a moron! I mean if you don't know what the hell your talking about, just shut up, rather than show the proof!
So if I want to run a irc server, i have to buy internet that costs hundreds of dollars? IRC is a server.. Technically, BBSs are telnet and ssh servers.
really back in the day when everyone had an open relay. What you choose
to do with the internet service you buy is your business.
ISPs have been blocking ports for years. The public line is that it's "for security". Lots of old wifi routers left port 23 open with a default login/pass. SMTP is disallowed because an ISP doesn't want to risk having their IP address space associated with spam.
I get quite a few bots/worms trying to log into my BBS every day on port 23, so I guess I can see why they would want to do this.
Some ISPs will also block 80, 443, 21, 22, and 53 as well.
Those are the ISPs That will then try to upsell you to business class to get those ports unblocked.
BBS! What a moron! I mean if you don't know what the hell your talking about, just shut up, rather than show the proof!
Maybe he doesn't understand what a BBS is. You're not providing access to the whole internet. If someone wants to get general like that, running a BBS is more akin to running a web site of some sort.
ISPs have been blocking ports for years.
SMTP is disallowed because an ISP doesn't want to risk having
their IP address space associated with spam.
The public line is that it's "for
security". Lots of old wifi routers left port 23 open with a default login/pass.
I get quite a few bots/worms trying to log into my BBS every day on port 23, so I guess I can see why they would want to do this.
Aside: If you're on a residential (especially cable) internet
provider connection, many/most providers block common server ports
from inbound connections. Try a higher/alternate port, such as 2323
and see if that works instead... you can probably just change the
port forward in your router to listen on 2323 and forward to the
host on 23, so you don't need to change the BBS's config.
Sorry to hijack. I may have this same problem. Port 23 is not letting traffic in. I know all routers are different, but in a generic way, how do you do this?
If port 23 isn't letting people through, maybe your ISP is blocking
that port, I'd guess.
I hope not. It's bad enough having ISPs blanket-block SMTP, if they
start blocking telnet that would really suck.
The only reason I can think why we "shouldn't run servers" with residential internet is because ISPs would want to make more money by charging more for "business" internet service, which doesn't have the restrictions that their residential internet service has.
I know some ISPs block certain ports, but at least since I started running Synchronet in 2007, I haven't had an ISP that blocked port 23 or the other standard ports (except maybe SMTP).
Nightfox
I use comcast using a residental account and they do block port 80 , SMPT ports. Like most others I am thankfull i can relay my email though vert. they did however allow you to relay mail though an email address by authenticating with the user name and password but they blocked that also a few years ago
I use comcast using a residental account and they do block port 80 , SMTP ports. Like most others I am thankfull i can relay my email though vert.
I'm not sure about how it is exactly now, but it seems that over the years comcast has several different ways of handling open ports and whether it does bandwidth limiting depending on the region.
Some people i know have no caps and can do whatever they want. some have horrible experiences with comcast.
Interesting.. I used to use Comcast residential, and the only port they blocked was SMTP. Port 80 worked fine at the time.
with around 900 mbps down and around 45mps up which is ok for my needs butt again just useing a residental account also
Since 2015 I've been using fiber internet, which offers the same speed for both download and upload. Having such a wide gap between download and upload speed seems weird to me now.. With fiber, even if you have speed as high as gigabit, the gigabit speed is both for upload and download.
Re: Re: Connection Refused
By: Grease to Tracker1 on Wed Mar 01 2023 17:28:00
Aside: If you're on a residential (especially cable) internet
provider connection, many/most providers block common server ports
from inbound connections. Try a higher/alternate port, such as 2323
and see if that works instead... you can probably just change the
port forward in your router to listen on 2323 and forward to the
host on 23, so you don't need to change the BBS's config.
Sorry to hijack. I may have this same problem. Port 23 is not letting traffic in. I know all routers are different, but in a generic way, how you do this?
I'd just use 2323 for telnet, if that was my main interest. In your router, eparately.
If you are comfortable with Linux, I'd suggest using a VPS host. This is wh grok, which will route an accessible IP to your internal system for use.
--
Michael J. Ryan
+o roughneckbbs.com
tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
Since 2015 I've been using fiber internet, which offers the same speed for both download and upload. Having such a wide gap between download and upload speed seems weird to me now.. With fiber, even if you have speed as high as gigabit, the gigabit speed is both for upload and download.I will have to look into that thank you
Nightfox wrote to Brokenmind <=-
Since 2015 I've been using fiber internet, which offers the same speed
for both download and upload. Having such a wide gap between download
and upload speed seems weird to me now.. With fiber, even if you have speed as high as gigabit, the gigabit speed is both for upload and download.
I need to bite the bullet and get fiber. I'm sitting on a couple of terabytes of data I'd love to sync with the cloud, but with a bandwidth cap and 20 mbps upload speed on cable, it'd be painful.
Who do you have, and do they have monthly bandwidth caps?
Re: Re: Connection Refused
By: Nightfox to Brokenmind on Wed Mar 08 2023 11:46 am
Since 2015 I've been using fiber internet, which offers the same speed fo both download and upload. Having such a wide gap between download and upload speed seems weird to me now.. With fiber, even if you have speed high as gigabit, the gigabit speed is both for upload and download.
i'm in a big city and my upload sucks. it's just how they cap you.
Nightfox wrote to Brokenmind <=-
Since 2015 I've been using fiber internet, which offers the same speed for both download and upload. Having such a wide gap between download and upload speed seems weird to me now.. With fiber, even if you have speed as high as gigabit, the gigabit speed is both for upload and download.
I need to bite the bullet and get fiber. I'm sitting on a couple of terabytes of data I'd love to sync with the cloud, but with a bandwidth
cap and 20 mbps upload speed on cable, it'd be painful.
Who do you have, and do they have monthly bandwidth caps?
... Magnify the most difficult details
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
My area is a broad band no man's land. ATT won't invest in enhancing infrast ructure and Comcast will not spend $10,000 a mile to run cable down a road that has less than 20 houses per mile. On the half mile section I live on there are 4 houses separated by corn fields. I'm
going to stick with Hughesnet until the fiber is run. Starlink has a
long waiting list in my area and the price jumps for the price of a reciver and dish. At first they were priced at $500 fo rthe dish, now
the price has increased to $750. At first they said no bandwidth
caps,but now in reality they say it's necessary.
AT&T FIber just moved in, but because of the street I'm on, AT&T fiber
| Sysop: | Lmorchard |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 63 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 24:06:19 |
| Calls: | 394 |
| Files: | 1 |
| Messages: | 24,792 |