search for: mungling

this bug is similar to something i see already discussed on why''s blogpost comments, which was reported fixed, but that was before the gem was made available (which is what im using since i cant seem to access the C.WTLS SVN) my guess is one of 3 things: fix didnt propagate to gem, my own failure to make an educated guess on proper setup (1), or a genuine bug essentially, for

Test, test one two, test > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Prof S W Damle > > I don't know whether Pete Batard (RUFUS' developer) have read your > messages. And this message is to see if the "reply to list mungling" is gone. (Check the E-mail headers ( this message was/is a "reply to list" )) Groeten Geert Stappers co-moderator of this mailinglist -- Leven en laten leven

Hi There is a Centos 7 up-to-date box with 2 interfaces, let's say 192.168.1.12 - enp2s0, 192.168.1.13 on enp3s0. Default gateway on enp2s0. The gateway is pfsense, IP is 192.168.1.1 with 2 WAN connections On the gateway the outgoing traffic is routed by source ip to different WAN, 192.168.1.12 to WAN1 and 192.168.1.13 to WAN2 On the centos box are set all the route and routing rules:

...her host on either one of the networks needed to talk to one of them, how would the router know which one to talk to? I have encountered this before where one company acquired another and they both had same subnet IP's. Before we renumbered one of the subnets, we resolved this via iptables mungling and policy routing. So, it's doable, but why when there's plentiful supply of RFC1918 IP addresses? Regards, ak.

Hi, because search is not working, I would like to access this list through some other means so that i can search past questions and feedback. Can someone give me the links or infomartion needed to subscribe. I especially need the ability to do searches TIA, Tuka -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

...e of the networks needed to > talk to one of them, how would the router know which one to talk to? > > I have encountered this before where one company acquired another and > they both had same subnet IP's. Before we renumbered one of the > subnets, we resolved this via iptables mungling and policy routing. So, > it's doable, but why when there's plentiful supply of RFC1918 IP addresses? > As I said in the initial message the centos box need to access the internet on both interfaces, the gateway in function of source IP ( the two IPs allocated on the centos box o...

Hello Sir, Following are the settings I used, Device: NO _Label (O:) Partition scheme and target system type: MBR partition scheme for BIOS or UEFI computers File System: FAT32 Cluster size: 4096 bytes (Default) New Volume label: (i)Quick format (ii)Create bootable disk using: MS-DOS (iii)Create extended label and icon files Format Options > Advanced Options: (i)List USB Hard

Again, this has been lightly tested. I think there still are a few glitchs. 1. stole progressmeter() from scp.c - clean up and simplified a little to remove the 'flag' status. It now understands how to initialize itself and how to terminate itself. Along with a malloced status bar instead of the original fix width bar. 2. removed all initialization code from scp.c for progressmeter()