Paul, Right now, there is no way to ban someone from the list. Stop giving us reasons to change that. On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, paul g wrote: > I have not been able to ever use anything you suggested to me in YOUR > remarks to my questions thus far labeled as useful. It probably would be > best that we no longer correspond between each other. Your answers are fast > and dumb and by the word dumb I mean that. they cover such a wide approach > that anyone using a search engine just has to read more information. To be > quite honest with you I also see a state worker as being partially needy as > you spend my tax dollars on unnecessary devices. You have a good day sir. > > +- > paul g > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:14:05 -0600 > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] DHCP address reservation on Q1000 modem - > Question. > > You know... I am done. I am not going to repeat myself when the question is > easily identified by its question mark, aka a "?" > > And, yes, that WAS condescension from me. > > I need to start filtering these emails on the server side. > > On Feb 4, 2015, at 21:57, paul g <pj.world at hotmail.com> wrote: > > I apologize. > > 3e. What was your question again? > > 4e. You are much smarter than me I hope I can answer your > question. > > Thanks, > > - - > paul g > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:54:30 -0600 > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] DHCP address reservation on Q1000 > modem - Question. > > So ... You don't want to answer my question? > > > > > On Feb 4, 2015, at 21:48, paul g <pj.world at hotmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you for your 'FAST' and 'Efficient' response. > > When I did initially acquire the Actiontec Q1000 device. I > initially depressed and held the 'reset button' of course > when the device is/was connected to the A/C power source > but had kept/held the device back from the attachment of > the LAN. For the duration of what I believe to be > approximately 30 - 35 seconds. After that I kept the > Actiontec Q1000 device off the LAN and 'hardwired' the > Q1000 to my laptop via a 'cat 5' Ethernet cable. I then > opened the Actiontec Q1000 interface GUI via the Firefox > webrowser and within the Actiontec GUI --> Quick-Setup the > device was listed under PPPoE ru1020.net <-- So of course > that made me think 'why is this device listed under > ru1020.net when I had just depressed the reset button for > half a minute or more'?. Then I continued and attached the > Q1000 device into the DSL service - RJ11 jack that I have > outfitted exclusively for the most 'short/easy' DSL entry > to this dwelling. Same thing pulled up: ru1020.net on > PPPoe > > I have at this time switched the PPP username to the > properly acquired and established account name listed for > my dwelling. > > Thank you for your help and 'Rapid' response, > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 20:48:43 -0600 > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] DHCP address reservation on > Q1000 modem - Question. > > > On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:39 PM, paul g > <pj.world at hotmail.com> wrote: > Questions - > > 1a. Is it necessary to keep the above two addresses on the > 'DHCP Reservation List' of the Actiontec Q1000 device? > > Probably not. > > 2a. I believe I have no devices currently on the LAN > utilizing the same 'MAC' address as the above 'DHCP' > output has provided. Can I now safely 'remove' the > above listed 'entities' from the DHCP Reservation > List? > > Can you confirm you don’t have these on your LAN? Oh 3A has > important information - it’s a brand new modem. Confirm anyway. > I have tools I use but they’re not Linux apps. > > 3a. As per last week I was able to return the > 'leased' ZyXel c1000z and have noticed by using the > newly acquired Actiontec Q1000. Speeds are the same > but the device has possible 'leakage' Are you aware > of ports being actively left open on the Actiontec > Q1000 device by any chance? > > I’ve never been a fan of the Actiontec modems. They’re pretty > cheap and I almost always put a piece of hardware in-between > them and my network (like my netgate pfsense boxes). > > > _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing > List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > > _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > > _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > >