On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 14:13 +1030, Tim wrote: > Aaron Konstam: > >>> We already determined that 192.168.1.6 is not the machine's address, > > Tim: > >> I don't recall seeing a message stating what was the true cause of the > >> rejection. > > Aaron Konstam: > > When the OP ran service network restart > > it would not restart getting an error that that ip address was already > > in use. That means to me that the ip address could not be asigned to the > > machine in question. > > To the *interface* in question... But anyway, I've already read that, > and it doesn't really address the first two quoted paragraphs above your > reply (the "why" and a proper "resolution"). > > By the way, who's c: erappy client made the subject line go "Re: Re: Re:"? I agree tha innerface is the coorrect word. It is also true that we have not solved the originall question but the problem has been circumvented by choosing a different ip. Yourmail client must be among those who resulted in the Re: Re: subject line. Actually it was caused by someone forwarding instead of replying. -- ======================================================================= In America, it's not how much an item costs, it's how much you save. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
