As far as I can work out it's not possible to connect to any hosts without a host password or a relay logon.
The problem that Matthew mentioned is not about authorization or security. It's just that the server can be used as an intermediary by someone who just knows its address and port. That poses no threat to security but it's still a nuisance.
That said, in the upcoming version 220.127.116.11 beta 2 we will implement certain mechanism to protect the server from such use. Again, it's not about any "security breach" or anything like that, it's just that it is possible to "piggyback" on someone else's server should you know its address and port used.
Yes, that. Though, I think you mean "local user" (person at the location of the PC) since I am the remote user (person at another location) and I can't click on it and its in the way.
Yes, this depends on where you are. But in our documentation and elsewhere on the site we use these terms in relation to where the tech/admin is located. So the admin is the local user whereas the user who is sitting at the computer to which the admin is connecting in is the remote user.
I guess unattended remote access isn't so much your target customer as remote technicians wh ere this might make some sense.
With unattended access no remote user is present.
Correct. Two remote monitors and two local monitors, and I want to map each remote monitor to a specific local monitor. Since this is not a beta feature, I agree this isn't the place.
Yeah, I don't think you understand what I mean, because businesses would definitely prefer to run traffic between their hosts directly and not through another server unless they had to. We'll just agree to disagree on that. Perhaps if I was unclear, all I really meant is that connections be made using direct connection, but without the user having to configure anything, it is handled automatically by the server. But I do believe you answered my question by not having any plans to implement such a feature. Fair enough.