| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:23:38 -0400 "Timothy A. Holmes" |
| 4 |
<tholmes@×××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > Flaky switch? (Too) long or bad (non-standard) cabling? That |
| 7 |
> > was usually the explanation when I was seeing such behaviour. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> Not sure what you mean about hijacking the thread, but I am sorry -- I |
| 10 |
> didn't mean to do anything wrong. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
No, you're only hurting yourself: Thread hijacking describes using the |
| 13 |
"reply" facility of your email program to start a new thread (instead |
| 14 |
of starting a new, fresh email, e.g. by clicking on the ML address). |
| 15 |
Email agents that make use of information in the mail headers for |
| 16 |
displaying threads will show your mail inside the structure of an |
| 17 |
existing thread. Some people might not even find your message buried in |
| 18 |
there. See the following link for knowing what I mean: |
| 19 |
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.gentoo.user/browse_frm/thread/601571a0fced1a73/e17f8a0483af6690?tvc=1 |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> As far as the switch, its on a hub that is on the span port of a |
| 23 |
> foundry switch (the hub is used as a poormans network tap -- I have |
| 24 |
> seen the same type of failure on machines directly connected to a |
| 25 |
> switch also) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> The cable is a commercially manufactured cable that tests out |
| 28 |
> correctly |
| 29 |
> - -its about 6 feet long |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Did you try if it works with another cable, on another port of the |
| 32 |
switch/hub? That would be proper exclusion of probable errors. You're |
| 33 |
description tells me what you have, but not if it's working right now. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
HTH, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-hwh |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives