>
> We have quite a lot of these in our cache.log
>
> ) Broken pipe.
> [25/Jun/1996:22:44:25 +0100] comm.c:379: connect:
> 194.163.250.34:8080: ( 32) Broken pipe. [25/Jun/1996:22:44:44 +0100]
> comm.c:379: connect: 194.15.144.7:8080: (32 ) Broken pipe.
> [25/Jun/1996:22:45:25 +0100] comm.c:379: connect:
> 194.15.144.7:8080: (32 ) Broken pipe. [25/Jun/1996:22:45:25 +0100]
> comm.c:379: connect: 194.15.144.7:8080: (32 ) Broken pipe.
> [25/Jun/1996:22:45:25 +0100] comm.c:379: connect:
> 194.163.250.34:8080: ( 32) Broken pipe. [25/Jun/1996:22:45:33 +0100]
> comm.c:379: connect: 194.163.250.34:8080: ( 32) Broken pipe.
> [25
Broken pipe is not currently handled when returned from connect(), since
at least I have no idea whan it is supposed to indicate when returned
from connect(). A guess is that it is some kind of connection refused,
or a kernel bug in yur OS, or possiblly a connect() call after close...
What OS are you using?
Are there anything in your logs that may be related to this?
> where the adresses are our parents running the same b17 as
> we do.
Interesting, but I am not sure that this is related. I think
that you may get these messages for any addresses, and not only
parents.
> The result seems to be that our users get some kind of access
> denied messages in there browsers.
I'd suspect they get a message about a Broken pipe error from connect()...
Received on Thu Jun 27 1996 - 23:16:40 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:32:32 MST