"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:1170120813_1575@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:22:18 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>
>> "Bogey On" <myfakeemail@foneyemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:wawvh.2926$ch1.1611@bigfe9...
>>> How safe is this program? I need to control my father-in-law's
>>> computer in order to help him with maintenance etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why pay for remote service when VNC (RealVNC or TightVNC) are free?
>> If
>> you both have Windows XP then use its included Remote Desktop.
>
> Many people can't use VNC because of the NAT service provided by their
> routers or ISP routers. While we block GTMP on all of our firewalls,
> it
> does have benefit for things like the op's need.


Even the cheapie NAT routers have port forwarding so you can specify the
port which would forward to a specific internal host, like using
http://<yourIPaddrOrNumber>:<port>. So you have the router use port
forwarding on a specific port to get to a specific host in your
intranetwork. Since your host must be reachable to receive traffic that
you request from web sites, I haven't seen an *ISP* "router" interfere
with getting to my hosts or my router. But then I haven't used a
restrictive ISP that has blocked any protocols to me.

P.S.
Regardless of your opinions about pcbutts1, please keep your signature
down to 4 lines maximum as that is considered the polite max size.
Beware that proselytizing a crusade usually puts you into a category of
ignored folk.