 jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | reply to joelmilleris
Re: Norton Internet Security 2003 Not Allowing Email quote:
. . . . I went into Internet Security Options, Firewall, HTTP Port List, then removed ports 110 & 25 from the list. (the ones Outlook commonly uses for POP3 and SMTP ports. It let me send immediatly. . . . .
Joel,
Hmm, that is interesting! I wonder how long they've been there? I just checked the HTTP Port List on both my NIS 3 and NIS 4 firewalls, and neither 110 nor 25 is incorporated into either. Maybe Randy, or Jazzman, or CrazyM could check their setups to see is this is some sort of new default setting in NIS/NPF 2003?
For those who may be wondering what this list is: (Quoting from the Help File in NIS 3.0): quote:
HTTP Port List. The HTTP Port List shows the HTTP port numbers being filtered for Java and ActiveX blocking, script blocking, confidential information and so on. The default list contains the standard HTTP ports, but you can add ports if you use applications that perform HTTP communication through nonstandard ports. For example, your COMPUTER may connect to the Internet through a proxy server that causes all HTTP communication to go through the port used by the proxy server. Web applications that use ports not covered in this list are not filtered for content blocking.
Good catch, Joel.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
| said by jvmorris:
I wonder how long they've been there? I just checked the HTTP Port List on both my NIS 3 and NIS 4 firewalls, and neither 110 nor 25 is incorporated into either. Maybe Randy, or Jazzman, or CrazyM could check their setups to see is this is some sort of new default setting in NIS/NPF 2003?
Well, they aren't on MY list, and I haven't changed anything on this list since installing NIS 2003 last Saturday (6 days ago)...hmmm...  :) |
|
jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | Randy,
What's on the e-mail tab? Maybe there's something there which has the inadvertent consequence of doing this?
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
|
|
| answer your question, jv? :) |
|
jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | said by Randy Bell:
answer your question, jv? :)
Yep, guess that ain't it.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
 EmilioGWhats This?Premium
join:2000-09-19
New York, NY | reply to Randy Bell
I was having the same problem with OE6sp1 and I simply added hotmail.com and oe.hotmail.com to the Web Content Add Sites list in NIS'2003' Options-Web Content, then set up permissions accordingly. Hth. Check your Log and check whats being blocked. |
|
jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | Emilio,
My man! You're back!! Nice to see you posting again. (This is the right Emilio, isn't it?)
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
 CrazyMPremium
join:2001-05-16
BC Canada
| reply to jvmorris
said by jvmorris:
Hmm, that is interesting! I wonder how long they've been there? I just checked the HTTP Port List on both my NIS 3 and NIS 4 firewalls, and neither 110 nor 25 is incorporated into either. Maybe Randy, or Jazzman, or CrazyM could check their setups to see is this is some sort of new default setting in NIS/NPF 2003?
I have never seen those ports in the HTTP Port List by default.
The default rules for the transparent proxy server, which includes the ports from the HTTP Ports List, also do not include ports 25 and 110.
It has been awhile since I tinkered with the list, but if I recall correctly any changes made there are not automatically reflected in the rule set.
If Joel added these ports himself to the HTTP Ports List directing them to the transparent proxy server, the default rules would not have allowed the email traffic.
CrazyM
[text was edited by author 2002-11-21 14:48:47] |
|
 jaykaykay4 Ever YoungPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:19
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to EmilioG
Re: EmilioG I have nothing to add to this thread re: the issue. I do have to say Welcome back, emilioG!!! I just did a double take when I saw your name. How good to see you again. I do hope all is back to normal and we will see more of you, just as we used to. You have been missed.
--
JKKAge is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature! |
|
 dpPremium,MVM
join:2000-12-08
Greensburg, PA
kudos:7 | said by jaykaykay:
I have nothing to add to this thread re: the issue. I do have to say Welcome back, emilioG!!! I just did a double take when I saw your name. How good to see you again. I do hope all is back to normal and we will see more of you, just as we used to. You have been missed.
I'll echo jkk's post. It's good to see your familiar moniker back on the boards. Hope all is well with you and hope to see more of your posts in the coming days. Welcome back friend!
--
Write your questions down on the back of a $20 dollar bill and send them to me |
|
 jazzman916Life on the UpbeatPremium,MVM,ExMod 2004-10
join:2001-09-01
Birdland | reply to jvmorris
Re: Norton Internet Security 2003 Not Allowing Ema said by jvmorris:
Maybe Randy, or Jazzman, or CrazyM could check their setups to see is this is some sort of new default setting in NIS/NPF 2003?
I echo CrazyM and Randy. 110 and 25 are not in the port list as the default. Have you installed any other packet filtering, ad blocking softweare that NIS would have for some crazy reason added those ports to the list?
--
Are you getting the most from your broadband connection? Jump on over to the Tweaks Forum to find out. |
|
jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | said by jazzman916:
... Have you installed any other packet filtering, ad blocking softweare that NIS would have for some crazy reason added those ports to the list?
Jazz,
I agree. Something is causing these additional ports to show up in that listing and it would be very nice to know what it is. (I've already asked Anita to post back if she has any ideas.)
Actually, I think I saw several postings prior to Joel's complaining about this problem elsewhere, but (not having NIS/NPF 2003) I was at a loss to answer them. So, yes, it would be invaluable to locate the source, because I think we're likely to see more queries about this in the future.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
