08-14-2006, 12:05 AM
Would it at all be possible for any of the ChatAutism server admins to set up a server listening on some port outside the 6665:6669 range?
The University of Georgia's residential network blocks outgoing traffic to ports 6665:6669. There is, of course, the shell account option, but it's hardly the most convenient arrangement, particularly when dealing with chat rooms on other servers as well, some of which may have blocked traffic from the shell provider in question (this happened to me before when I used a shell account at a now-defunct free shell provider).
All the other networks I frequently use for autie/aspie chats, including Starlink-IRC and Freenode, have at least one server set up to allow connections on a port outside the 6665:6669 range. This doesn't even need to be a network-wide thing; just one server admin running a server on, say, port 7000 would suffice.
Edited to add: Alternatively, if that's not an option for any of the server admins, could you give me a shell account on your own server, Gareth? To me, that would be preferable to running through some third party's shell account, as I did in the past. It just seems like running a server on an alternate port would ease the problem for others encountering issues with corporate/university firewalls.
The University of Georgia's residential network blocks outgoing traffic to ports 6665:6669. There is, of course, the shell account option, but it's hardly the most convenient arrangement, particularly when dealing with chat rooms on other servers as well, some of which may have blocked traffic from the shell provider in question (this happened to me before when I used a shell account at a now-defunct free shell provider).
All the other networks I frequently use for autie/aspie chats, including Starlink-IRC and Freenode, have at least one server set up to allow connections on a port outside the 6665:6669 range. This doesn't even need to be a network-wide thing; just one server admin running a server on, say, port 7000 would suffice.
Edited to add: Alternatively, if that's not an option for any of the server admins, could you give me a shell account on your own server, Gareth? To me, that would be preferable to running through some third party's shell account, as I did in the past. It just seems like running a server on an alternate port would ease the problem for others encountering issues with corporate/university firewalls.