On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 4:24 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <
punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:45:59 -0400
Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > furthermore
> >
> > telnet stimson.state.gov 25
> > telnet: can't connect to remote host (169.252.4.132): No route to
> > host
> >
> > telnet stimson.state.gov 80
> > connects
> >
> > so, at face value, nothing is listening on port 25
> >
>
> 0.o is that a real log?
>
> The error message pertains to the host, not the port.
that's what busybox's telnet says. Python says
socket.error: [Errno 113] No route to host
so it looks like the idiotic message "no route to host" means : can't connect to x.x.x.x:port -- so the error message pertains to the host:port combination and it's badly worded.
usually "no route to host" is from the x.x.x.x but is unrelated to the port.
it's possible it could appear related to the port due to random timing
or something could be intentionally triggering the not-usually-port-related error only attempts to connect to the port were made
maybe routing has changed in the past ten years?
>
> I'm having experiences like that, too.
>
> >