Re: [LARTC] Re: [JAXLUG] Reply-to not set right.
Wrong list, sorry, did not hit reply to all, and added wrong list in CC, sorry. -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Obsidian-Studios, Inc. http://www.obsidian-studios.com ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] Re: [JAXLUG] Reply-to not set right.
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 09:33 -0400, Kurt Guenther wrote: > It looks like the reply to isn't set up on the list server? No it's changed. In a nut shell. Hitting reply sends reply to sender of email. Defaults to private. Just about every mailer has a Reply To All, which does just that. So in the case of mailing lists. It seems many are migrating in that direction. Which technically is the proper way to go. >From a habit and laziness standpoint it's a total pain. From a technical and logical point of view. It makes total sense. This came up not to long ago on the LARTC list. I was for it being the old way. Till a user provided the following. After reading all (long reads but necessarily) I reversed my stance and had to agree with list admins decision. First read: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Then, the rebuttal: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html Finally, the rebuttal to the rebuttal: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Obsidian-Studios, Inc. http://www.obsidian-studios.com ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] transparent bridge
Hi installed Debian with bridging enabled then I install squid. Squid work if I manually enter proxy setting in firefox. Then I ran the following to make it transparent: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward ebtables -t broute -A BROUTING -p IPv4 --ip-protocol 6 --ip-destination-port 80 -j redirect --redirect-target ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i br0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 3128 Now all I get when I go to firefox is a blank page and down the bottom is: Waiting for www.google.com.au... Please need help.. I have tried the squid forum and looked everywhere L Many thanks william ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] ESFQ not so fair?
Corey Hickey napisał(a): Using jhash is a probably a good idea, the "improved" hash is broken and will cause reordering in some circumstances: return (h - q->dyn_min) * (q->hash_divisor - 1) / q->dyn_range; dyn_min, dyn_max and dyn_range, as their name suggests, are adjusted dynamically, so the hash function changes whenever one of these values changes, resulting in reordering of packets belonging to a single flow. That should stabilize after it's been running a while and has seen the normal range of IP addresses. Anyway, I agree, it's not very good. I am changing size of HTB queue at 01:00 AM and then back at 06:00 AM. So it is quite possible that hash used by esfq will never go stable? If I know range of input values will hardcoding that into esfq help? Or maybe there is something similair to esfq with direct hash but a larger one (16 bits should be enough). I don't care about memory usage, mostly important is performance. I am going to get uplink from another company and having another few thousands of HTB qdisc is not wise idea :-). -- Michał Margula, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://alchemyx.uznam.net.pl/ "W życiu piękne są tylko chwile" [Ryszard Riedel] ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] Class C network 223.255.255.x
Nothing wrong with the official, my backbone is expanding quite alot and we adding quite alot of businesses with cables in building, and we use pppoe and radus to asign ip addresses, just looking for a block of addresses that most companies will never use. SewOn 4/12/06, Erik Slagter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 14:52 +0200, the sew wrote:> Most networks are using either 10.x.x.x or 172.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x ,> but was curious If I can use the range 223.255.255.x for my backbone> routing, this looks like a nice block to use as most ppl don't use > this, specially if you build quite a big intranet>> what about the whole 223.x.x.x block, will this be used on the> internet?These are valid routable ip adresses, so you'd better not use them for your own purposes.What is wrong with the official private ranges?___LARTC mailing listLARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
