UKVoIPTalk.com

In message <6h4do2liof810nv4napb2aqo54it8qeqnd@4ax.com>, [email]me@privacy.net[/email]
writes[color=blue]
>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:19:05 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
><ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>
>>"Paul W" <paul@nospam.me.uk> wrote in message
>>news:grahh.11314$z01.2826@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net[color=darkred]
>>> I run Skype 24x7 and have done so for the last two years.
>>>
>>> I have never suffered any such problems so can only
>>> assume it must be your local configuration :-)[/color]
>>
>>There seems to be a problem with the configuration of your newsreader,
>>it's top posting..!
>>
>>Ivor
>>[/color]
>
>Wanker
>[/color]
Wanker Squared

--
DJ

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:08:44 GMT, "Paul W" <paul@nospam.me.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I have never suffered any such problems so can only assume it must be your
>local configuration[/color]

If you can point me to the relevant configuration option in Skype I
would be grateful. Something like "opt out of having 2500 unsolicited
connections" perhaps.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster [url]http://www.tglsoft.de/[/url]
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

Phil Thompson wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:08:44 GMT, "Paul W" <paul@nospam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>I have never suffered any such problems so can only assume it must be your
>>local configuration[/color]
>
>
> If you can point me to the relevant configuration option in Skype I
> would be grateful. Something like "opt out of having 2500 unsolicited
> connections" perhaps.
>[/color]

Don't run it as a service.
Put your machine in standby when not in use.
Use NAT.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:41:53 +0000, JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Don't run it as a service.[/color]

how ? I don't recall Skype presenting me with that option, where's the
setting on the client ?
[color=blue]
>Put your machine in standby when not in use.[/color]

it's always in use remotely.
[color=blue]
>Use NAT.[/color]

it is NATted, that's a myth.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster [url]http://www.tglsoft.de/[/url]
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

Recently, Phil Thompson popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:41:53 +0000, JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
|
|>Don't run it as a service.
|
|how ? I don't recall Skype presenting me with that option, where's the
|setting on the client ?
|
Don't run it... full stop.

Or, should be installed to be fired up on request, not starting when the
PC is started. Probably is the "Install for just me" and "Install for
every user" option.

If you tell me how does it start, maybe I can help you.

Another option is to set up a proper QOS management, and choking the
service inside your network for the packets marked with the Skype tag.

NATting doesn't do, it's the client that advertises itself to the Skype
network as a Supernode when it detects a (large) broadband connection.
You are not "discovered" from outside, it's the client that does the
trick: it gets your public IP and port and broadcasts it to the world.
What annoys me is that this is done without the user knowledge or
consent on bog standard installations. This is a blatant breach of the
Computer Misuse Act, but nobody seems to care about it...

Whatever.
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:59:15 GMT, ßødincµs²°°° <this.em@il.is.invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Don't run it... full stop.[/color]

it's a test bed to see how Skype behaves in a practical installation.
[color=blue]
>Or, should be installed to be fired up on request, not starting when the
>PC is started. Probably is the "Install for just me" and "Install for
>every user" option.[/color]

the "on request" bit wouldn't work for incoming calls, presence
indication etc.
[color=blue]
>If you tell me how does it start, maybe I can help you.[/color]

I'll look and see, also see who is the owner of the process.

My primary interest is to understand how a default Skype installation
behaves and what the consequences might be.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster [url]http://www.tglsoft.de/[/url]
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

ßødincµs²°°° wrote:[color=blue]
> Recently, Phil Thompson popped out over the fence
> around uk.telecom.voip and said...
> |On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:41:53 +0000, JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
> |
> |>Don't run it as a service.
> |
> |how ? I don't recall Skype presenting me with that option, where's the
> |setting on the client ?
> |
> Don't run it... full stop.
>
> Or, should be installed to be fired up on request, not starting when the
> PC is started. Probably is the "Install for just me" and "Install for
> every user" option.
>
> If you tell me how does it start, maybe I can help you.
>
> Another option is to set up a proper QOS management, and choking the
> service inside your network for the packets marked with the Skype tag.
>
> NATting doesn't do, it's the client that advertises itself to the Skype
> network as a Supernode when it detects a (large) broadband connection.
> You are not "discovered" from outside, it's the client that does the
> trick: it gets your public IP and port and broadcasts it to the world.[/color]

According to Skype itself: "a Skype client that is unable to
receive inbound network connections (such as a user behind a
NAT or firewall) will never become eligible to become a
supernode nor will it ever be asked to relay a third party’s
traffic"

Are you saying this is wrong?

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:50:39 +0000, JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>According to Skype itself: "a Skype client that is unable to
>receive inbound network connections (such as a user behind a
>NAT or firewall) will never become eligible to become a
>supernode nor will it ever be asked to relay a third party’s
>traffic"
>
>Are you saying this is wrong?[/color]

yes.

Unless there is some other modus operandi not covered by the above
that involves data flow to and from the PC and 2500 simultaneous
connections.

At [url]http://yarwell.blogspot.com/[/url] you can see the IP address and ports
of the machine concerned. I am not port forwarding 1174 to that PC as
the above quote would suggest was necessary.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster [url]http://www.tglsoft.de/[/url]
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

Phil Thompson wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:50:39 +0000, JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>According to Skype itself: "a Skype client that is unable to
>>receive inbound network connections (such as a user behind a
>>NAT or firewall) will never become eligible to become a
>>supernode nor will it ever be asked to relay a third party’s
>>traffic"
>>
>>Are you saying this is wrong?[/color]
>
>
> yes.
>
> Unless there is some other modus operandi not covered by the above
> that involves data flow to and from the PC and 2500 simultaneous
> connections.
>
> At [url]http://yarwell.blogspot.com/[/url] you can see the IP address and ports
> of the machine concerned. I am not port forwarding 1174 to that PC as
> the above quote would suggest was necessary.[/color]

Were those connections all outbound, then? If not, it's a
puzzle how inbound connections could be established without
router port forwarding or a public IP address forwarding to
that PC. Maybe someone in the Skype user forums could
explain it.

Did you say the PC was providing remote access? Does this
provide a route through the firewall?

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:42:53 +0000, JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Were those connections all outbound, then? If not, it's a
>puzzle how inbound connections could be established without
>router port forwarding or a public IP address forwarding to
>that PC.[/color]

its trivial really, the Skype client behind the firewall can solicit
the inbound connections. They aren't "cold calling" connections they
are part of a P2P network with a client on my network.

The Skype client could send a packet out saying reply to this on port
xyz and the firewall would accept that as a reply associated with the
outbound request.

Type "netstat" at a windows command line and you'll see lots of
inbound connections that are responses to things like web browsers.
[color=blue]
>Did you say the PC was providing remote access? Does this
>provide a route through the firewall?[/color]

obviously, but not for Skype ports. Its running SNMP and a web server.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster [url]http://www.tglsoft.de/[/url]
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.