On 2009-04-15 22:27, Dennis J Harrison Jr wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 2009-04-15 18:51, Dennis J Harrison Jr wrote:
>>> This is usually routing issue. Check the usual suspects with your fav
>>> route tracing tool.
>> Like mtr or traceroute?
>
> Absolutely fine. I use wireshark for most network forensics these
> days. If you have a wintendo box then VisualRoute is pretty neat
> (last time I tried it in wine was a bust, but that was a while ago).
I ran mtr for over 5 minutes with a packet loss of only 2, and that
between hops 6: (68.1.16.69, lkhnsysl02-gex3.at.cox.net) and 7:
(68.1.17.2, pop.east.cox.net).
That doesn't seem to be the problem...
>>> If nothing stands out try giving fetchmail the a
>>> record.
>> How do I do that?
>
> nslookup pop.east.cox.net =
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name: pop.east.cox.net
> Address: 68.1.17.2
And put the dotted quad address in the fetchmail config file?
But anyway, wouldn't that problem generate a different error?
>>> I doubt it has anything to do with that though. Probably
>>> just an overloaded server/connection/device on there end if the trace
>>> is ok. Which is what you mentioned. But here is some vindication.
>>> Have a good one, sourpuss :)
>> Sourpuss?????
>>
> Must be the wrong Ron Johnson :) My apologies!
It is a pretty common name... :(
-- Scooty Puff, Sr The Doom-Bringer ___________________ Nolug mailing list nolug@nolug.orgReceived on 04/16/09
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 08/06/09 EDT