ftp logon problem

[Nancy Stout]

I have a user who was able to connect to my UNIX machine running 11.0 with a generic name of sct to a specific directory. His computer was replaced and he now is only able to get to the root directories. If he tries to go to the directory where his reports are located he gets the error message "Internet Explorer cannot display the web page"

[Steven Schweda]

What is "a generic name of sct"?

Define "the root directories".

> [...] If he tries to go [...]

Go where, exactly? How?

It might help to know the URL used in MSIE.

Does a command-line FTP client program work
better than the Web browser? (Error messages
from MSIE tend to be devoid of such clutter
as detailed information about what went
wrong, and hence are typically useless.
Messages from a simple FTP client are often
more helpful.)

[Nancy Stout]

Steven,

The user sct is not really a "generic" name it is a user that a number of people here use to logon. This user is the only one having a problem connecting and only after his computer was replaced. Before his computer was replace he was able to access the directory fine. He opens up Internet explorer and types ftp://sct@pa10 it then brings up the mounted directories on this server. He needs to go to a directory called "/u01/app/sct/banner/spool" but when it tries to go to the /u01 directory he gets the message that it cannot display the web page. I hope that this answers all of your questions and you can give me some assistance.

[Steven Schweda]

> I hope that this answers all of your
> questions [...]

All but the important one:

> Does a command-line FTP client program work
> better than the Web browser? [...]

> [...] but when it tries to go to the /u01
> directory [...]

This is not a useful description. What's the
URL used for this? The exact same URL works
from a different computer? (Watch for O-0
and I-1 typo errors.)

[Paul McCleary]

Hi Nancy,

One thought - Maybe the IE configuration on this new PC does not exclude this systems IP address in the "Bypass Proxy Server For Local Addresses" - i.e. it is trying to go via your proxy server to find the address of this server.

Steven's suggestion is a good test for you to check - it would also rule out the above.

Hope this helps,
Paul

[Nancy Stout]

Steve,

I had the user run the command from a dos prompt and he was able to get the files that he needed. However this still does not tell me what changed in his P.C. that does not allow him to access the directory from internet explorer. At this point he is satisfied with being able to get the reports.

[Steven Schweda]

> [...] However this still does not tell me
> what changed in his P.C. [...]

Lacking any significant psychic powers, I
can't see what the user tried to do, and you
don't seem to be revealing it, so I prefer
not to waste time speculating in a vacuum.

Ideally, the user would copy+paste a failing
URL into some e-mail, so that at least one of
us would know exactly what fails. It's also
possible that a different browser would be
more informative. So far as I can see, the
claim that the new PC is significant is based
on only a vague user complaint, with no
actual evidence for it. I'm open to actual
evidence, but with none at hand, I prefer to
believe that the user is a dope who can't
type, and who sees what he wants to see when
he reports the problem. This greatly
simplifies my role in solving the problem,
while we all wait for a useful problem
report.

[Nancy Stout]

Steven,

The users is not a "dope" I was going to give you a step by step account of what was going on but I don't want to waste your time. I was able to duplicate his problem on my P.C. and every time I closed internet explorer and brought it back up I got one step further in the directory path. I was finally able to get to where all of the reports are displayed. My next set is to copy the url and see if my user is finally able to get into the report that he needs.

[Nancy Stout]

I have a work around.

[Steven Schweda]

> [...] I was going to give you a step by
> step account of what was going on but I
> don't want to waste your time. [...]

Where was that sentiment when you were
supplying only incomplete (useless)
accounts of what was going on? Expressed
earlier, it could've saved at least one of
us some valuable time.