Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-Id: <200307271650.h6RGoogJ026746@mail1.acecape.com> From: "Matthew O. Persico" To: , Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:50:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Erroneous complaint about being unable to run emacs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h6RGp8f29174 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? -- Matthew O. Persico -- 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/