<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Remove the limit on TCP connection attempts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.raymond.cc/blog/remove-the-limit-on-tcp-connection-attempts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.raymond.cc/blog/remove-the-limit-on-tcp-connection-attempts/</link>
	<description>Daily updated news of useful advanced computer tips and tricks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:29:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Umapathy</title>
		<link>http://www.raymond.cc/blog/remove-the-limit-on-tcp-connection-attempts/#comment-416817</link>
		<dc:creator>Umapathy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.raymond.cc/blog/?p=144#comment-416817</guid>
		<description>Well nLite do have an option about setting the TCP/IP limit. By the way what is the best value if some body uses nLite? I have seem similar guides saying 50 as the best value has this been verified by anyone.?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well nLite do have an option about setting the TCP/IP limit. By the way what is the best value if some body uses nLite? I have seem similar guides saying 50 as the best value has this been verified by anyone.?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TCP Scan for alive VNC Server &#187; Raymond.CC Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.raymond.cc/blog/remove-the-limit-on-tcp-connection-attempts/#comment-8633</link>
		<dc:creator>TCP Scan for alive VNC Server &#187; Raymond.CC Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.raymond.cc/blog/?p=144#comment-8633</guid>
		<description>[...] If you configure VNC Neighborhood to scan more than 10 connections, you may get an incomplete list of machines running VNC server. To increase this limit, you can visit this post for instruction on how to remove the limit on TCP connection attempts. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] If you configure VNC Neighborhood to scan more than 10 connections, you may get an incomplete list of machines running VNC server. To increase this limit, you can visit this post for instruction on how to remove the limit on TCP connection attempts. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond</title>
		<link>http://www.raymond.cc/blog/remove-the-limit-on-tcp-connection-attempts/#comment-472</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:02:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.raymond.cc/blog/?p=144#comment-472</guid>
		<description>Yea, the pros and cons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yea, the pros and cons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Major Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.raymond.cc/blog/remove-the-limit-on-tcp-connection-attempts/#comment-470</link>
		<dc:creator>Major Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2006 06:43:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.raymond.cc/blog/?p=144#comment-470</guid>
		<description>It seems software protection has to have some sacrifices. We can&#039;t have it all, can we?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems software protection has to have some sacrifices. We can&#8217;t have it all, can we?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching 1/5 queries in 0.002 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 239/240 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via cdn.raymond.cc

Served from: www.raymond.cc @ 2012-02-10 23:31:39 -->
