Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Info:	This message was accepted for relay by
	smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication
X-Trace:	UmFuZG9tSVb2iGjSoCGqS0hXG/+zECSg7VPXl1HsLEGu6y9X53fMhXwe5Rbj2HZi
Message-ID:	<3F24047B.3070609@cygwin.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:57:31 -0400
From:	Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	"Matthew O. Persico" <persicom AT acedsl DOT com>
CC:	wpmccormick AT covad DOT net, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Erroneous complaint about being unable to run emacs
References:	<200307271650 DOT h6RGoogJ026746 AT mail1 DOT acecape DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<200307271650.h6RGoogJ026746@mail1.acecape.com>

Matthew O. Persico wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:35:04 -0500, Bill McCormick wrote:
> 
>>Martin Cohen Wrote:
>>
>>>The reason for this is that my McAfee firewall was
>>>set (due to my mistake) to not allow emacs to access the
>>>internat. This caused the failure above.
>>>
>>>I do not know why emacs (and other applications, such as
>>>xclock) need to access the internet, but allowing them to
>>>allows them to run.
>>
>>Emacs (and must programs X programs) use TCP/IP sockets to
>>communicate to
>>Xserver.
>>
> 
> 
> Agreed, but what really bugs me is this:
> 
> Emacs has to use TCP/IP to look for an XServer, but the best it can to is look at 127.0.0.1 and then $DISPLAY. Sooooo, assuming that both are on the same machine, why is McAffee 
> detecting an attempt to get to the Internet? Shouldn't they both resolve to the LAN? Unless McAffee/Norton and the ilk monitor the TCP/IP stack and put up "messages" before the 
> destination is decoded, assuming the worst?


Is this a rhetorical question?

If not, you could debug Emacs to look for the answer, although I expect it
comes down to the internals of Winsock.  But, if you can't find a good
reason there, then it must be a McAffee issue.  Actually, you might want
to start there anyway.  A review of their knowledge base might provide
some insights.  If you do find that this is some wierd Cygwin issue,
report it back to this list.


-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -