Keymaps?
Hi Folks, What is the one, true, official way to set a keyboard map under debian? loadkeys, yes? How could it be possible that I select (and manually load) the de keymaps, and don't get any umlaute, and the @ sign is on the wrong key? Is this a bug (fileable against what, console-tools?) or am I missing something? Best wishes, Nils -- But since you asked: I am like a hunter of peace, one who chases the elusive mayfly of love. - Well, something like that. -- Trigun Echelon Bait v2.0: Biological assassination of terrorism in trade center anthrax nuclear plutonium weapon poison president islam bush.
Re: Keymaps?
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Wouter de Vries wrote: key? Is this a bug (fileable against what, console-tools?) or am I missing something? dpkg-reconfigure console-data And if that doesn't help? -- But since you asked: I am like a hunter of peace, one who chases the elusive mayfly of love. - Well, something like that. -- Trigun Echelon Bait v2.0: Biological assassination of terrorism in trade center anthrax nuclear plutonium weapon poison president islam bush.
Re: Keymaps?
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Wouter de Vries wrote: I am sorry, but I do not know... It only works for the latest versions as far as I know. Well my problem is, the y and z are correct, but the @ is not, and the \ is also at a wrong place... So, I take it this is a bug? :-/ Best wishes, Nils -- But since you asked: I am like a hunter of peace, one who chases the elusive mayfly of love. - Well, something like that. -- Trigun Echelon Bait v2.0: Biological assassination of terrorism in trade center anthrax nuclear plutonium weapon poison president islam bush.
Login temrinated w/signal 13
Hello, I have a potato box which serves as a Mail server. When I try to login via ssh, I get this: bash-2.04$ slogin -l root mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s password: Last login: Thu Aug 17 18:51:25 2000 from wishbringer.work.de on pts/0 Linux mail 2.2.16 #4 Fri Jun 16 19:42:13 CEST 2000 i686 unknown Most of the programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are freely redistributable; the exact distribution terms for each program are described in the individual files in /usr/doc/*/copyright Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law. sh: /usr/bin/X11/xauth: No such file or directory Command terminated on signal 13. And then I get dumped back to my originating host. Signal 13 is broken pipe, isn't it? So not very educating. I try 3-4 times and then it works. Does anybody have any idea what might be causing this? The only other system anomaly I could discover is: debconf: failed to initialize Text frontend debconf: falling back to Dialog frontend Which I also don't know what is causing this (I haven't checked really because I don't see how the two problems could be related). Any help would be appreciated. Best wishes, Nils -- http://nils.jeppe.de/ +49 177 7369365
Re: RBL report..
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote: DUL is very effective in doing that. it prevents spammers from hiding their activities from their ISP...which ensures that they will be caught and their account nuked very promptly. Okay, I see this point, however, I do have a problem with the categoric blacklisting of IPs just because they're dialup. that's the medium-term indirect effect of DUL...the immediately beneficial direct effect is that spam from dialup users is blocked by anyone who makes use of the DUL. Well, hmmm, only direct spam, but you are right. DUL and ORBS do make for a quite potent combination. I just realized this would also take care of that VERY annoying kind of spam where spammers send spam directly to the 2nd highest MX record in a zone. That mailserver looks at the MX and thinks, hey, not for me, but I'm a fallback, let me just forward this, and my MTA thinks hey this is from my fallback, I trust that guy. DUL sounds better by the minute. I apologize for the Clue comment :-) forces them to use their ISP's mail server, thus increasing the effectiveness of the MAPS RBL because it forces the ISP to take responsibility for their users' actions - it takes away their option to bullshit and say nothing to do with me, i only provide dialup service. Any provider who says this should be tarred and feathered anyway ;) anyway...novice mail admins are the bane of real mail admins everywhere, their fuckups cause problems all over the net (not the least of which is that novice mail admins often run open relays through ignorance or indifference to the spam problem) Tell me about it. Had enough troubles with these at work. At least they all take a heavy hint very well. People get very nervous when they might get their Mail access snipped. -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
Branden, Hey, please leave me out of that ;-) But would you please provide me with a link for DUL so I can finally check out what it's all about? But the points about ORBS are still valid, no matter what DUL is. Being listed in orbs IS something you can change: Fix your server! And if you're dialup, you can change isp's as last result; if you're not dialup but dsl, leased line, or whatnot, you can just stop using any smarthost and thus be responsible for your own server and relaying (or lack thereof), since orbs lists individual ip's only. Nils -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Lawrence Walton wrote: Nils: you still need a DNS named, static, route-able IP to be your own host. Only for incoming, and with incoming, you decide if you want to use ORBS or not. I'd say most public providers don't use it, for obvious reasons. ORBS only affects you when you send mail, and that you can do from dynamic, too, if need be. Branden: You might consider getting a static. The only way to live, imho. ;-) -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote: yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs. that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List. Well then I have to agree, DUL is bad, because it's near impossible to kill dial-in spammers, except to have their accounts revoked of course. Blocking the IPs is really stupid and ineffective and whoever thought of that bright idea should be given a very big Clue. This however also means it's different enough from ORBS that I completely fail to see how people can throw them in together. -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Daniel Martin wrote: ORBS BLOCKS MORE THAN OPEN RELAYS. Sorry to shout, but I've been bitten by ORBS before. It blocks open relays *or machines which relay for open relays*. Which is basically the same. This means that since my campus's smarthost trusts any machine inside jhu.edu to send mail out (and why shouldn't it?), an open realy anywhere on campus can cause all mail going through the smarthost to be blocked. Because you shouldn't relay mail from open relays. Since the problem was identified, block the machine which is local on your campus. Once you fix it, notify ORBS so they will take you out of their list. Relaying mail for open relays effectively makes YOUR SERVER an open relay, too. It HAS to be blocked, because the mail doesn't originate from the real open relay but from the smarthost, and if the smarthost didn't get blocked, it would be really easy to circumvent ORBS. To repeat: ORBS does not block only mail that came through open relays, it blocks mail that came through servers that have in the past served open relays. It allows a single open relay on a mail network to cause the entire mail network to be blocked. It is to my mind an inordinately severe response to the problem. NO IT IS NOT. Spam is evil. Open relays are evil. Close all open relays, they have NO justification for existence. People who like to argue otherwise can get in touch with me, and I will happily let them deal with all Spam I get. ;-) To reiterate, open relays are a serious configuration problem. It's a bug. It's a serious security hole. It has to be fixed. It isn't just a harmless little something, it is costing hundreds of thousands of people all around the world, every day, real money to deal with Spam. ORBS gives you enough time to fix the problem before you get blocked. And if for some reason you cannot fix the open relay, you have to block the open relay from using you as a smarthost. Yes it is that simple. No there is no alternative. Administrators who can not deal with open relays are incompetent fools. Administrators who do not want to deal with open relays are not one iota better than the worst spammers out there. There, I had to say it, now let's close the discussion, ORBS is a reasonable answer to a real problem. Nils -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: ORBS deserves special mention because of their insane hit count, I don't know what that is about but ORBS would block 10% of the mails we get. I think it is without question that the majority of those blocks are legitimate mails. ORBS is also almost completely inclusive of the RSS and RBL. ORBS blocks all open relays. A lot of people have open relays. Since open relays still do not have any reason for existence other than admin ignorance, the correct way here would be to block all open relays and then fix the mail servers. ORBS really cuts down on spam, the accounts I have protected by ORBS usually only get one type of spam: that is spam resent via mailing lists. * Note, once a site is listed in one of these RBLs it becomes impossible for a user to unsubscribe from our lists - no matter what they do they will never be able to communicate a bounce or a unsubscribe request - this is pretty bad. Hmmm actually, I use Exim, and Exim has a way to configure exceptions from RBL blocks. So you could enter an unsubscribe-alias-email-address into these exceptions. Nils -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: ORBS has a tendancy to not take the time to make sure their messages go to the right places and then they are very slow to take sites off the list after problems are fixed. afaik, ORBS sends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] What other right place could there be? And taking people off the list is automatic. Fix it, enter the IP in their form, it gets re-cehcekd and taken off the list. Works like a charm. ie, to them making sure spam never happens is more important than what damage they cause in hte process. I rate them in with the DUL. If people configured their servers correctly, they'd never get on the list. ;-) Also, ORBS allows for I think 3-5 days warning in advance, which is sufficient to fix a server. Nils -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Mark Brown wrote: ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically firewall out sites that attempt to relay through them - the site notices the first check, blocks the rest and gets added to the list. Well I didn't know that, however, that's a pretty redundant thing to do - afterall, you can just disable relaying alltogether and be done with it. ;-) -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: afaik, ORBS sends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] What other right place could there be? The domain's technical contact. Might be a good idea to do this in addition to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I fail to see where this is better - Most domains have quite nonsensical hostmaster tech-c's. Uh, I can find at least one site real quickly whose admin will tell you that he got a message from ORBS, fixed the problem, was blacklisted anyway, and it took him a month to get off that list even though the problem was fixed days before they blacklisted him. Yeah well they probably did NOT fix the problem, then. Given every report I've heard to the contrary, I'm not sure I believe that. I've also been told that there are cases where their tests produce false positives. I don't see how you can create a false positive on a relay test. Either the message gets through, and you're an open relay, or it doesn't, and you're fine. It's quite simple, really. -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On 26 Mar 2000, Jason Henry Parker wrote: postmaster at a host I co-admin got mail from ORBS a few days before Christmas of 1999. We were given four weeks to fix our open relay, plenty of logs and a reasonable amount of help from the ORBS website on how to fix it. The only difficult part was finding how to upgrade our mailserver! Four weeks? Did they change this? When we got blacklisted coz a customer (open relay) used us as a smart host, they gave us four days ;-). Having been on the nasty end of the ORBS stick, I still give it a thumbs-up. Yeah, me too. They're competent, cool people, and their system works in almost totally eleminating spam, unlike the other RBLs out there. Plus, they're not a blackhole. We had one case where an upstream provider used one of those to block IP traffic - to Real.Com. Now that's overkill. But blocking mail traffic from open relays is perfectly acceptable. -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: Or it appears to have been accepted and goes nowhere. I've seen a setup or two like this specifically for the purposes of tracking who was trying to use the relay... Just check your reject log for ip adresses ;-) If someone has some weird setup like that they can blame no-one but themselves. ;) Besides, as a deliberate setup, this is probably the exception. Unfortunately, it demonstrates that ORBS is a little more indiscriminant than perhaps is good. Yes; because innocent people do get caught in the middle of it. But it's the only method to fight open relays. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no reason for relays to be open. Just because half the admins out there are too incompetent to take care of their mail servers doesn't justify why the rest of the net has to wade through floods of spam ;-) When I have to chose between using ORBS or sorting out 20-30 spams a day, I'll happily use ORBS. The innocent people getting caught should change to an ISP who has competent admins, or bug their ISP to fix the problem already. Nils -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: The point exactly.. If RBL or RSS blacklists someone, it's a known spammer or a site which has refused to act against spammers abusing their systems. In these instances, the blacklisting happens as a last resort. But you can't keep up with the amount of spam out there. DUL and ORBS both seem to think they need to punish anyone whose config or origin does not meet their standards (or as someone else noted in the case of ORBS, if they are unable to test you..) I don't know anything about DUL. ORBS lists people who run open relays, which is a known and real problem. There are those who believe such far-reaching pre-emptive strikes against spammers are warranted. I'm not one of them. I believe DUL and ORBS are only making the problems worse by resorting to fighting dirty without regard for the innocent users. So don't use ORBS on your machines. As for fighting dirty, I think it could also be argued that blocking relay-checks is fighting dirty. By having an open relay, these admins cause a great deal of damage. The bandwidth that spam eats up alone every day must be immense, world wide. These people are typified by Craig Sanders who has said on many occasions now in several forums that people who don't like or are hurt by such blacklists should simply get a better ISP---as if a lot of people even had a choice! Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs right? That sort of uncaring attitude shows exactly how unethical that view (and IMO the people who hold it) are. I care a great deal, that's why I take a look at the greater picture. And in the long run, everybody is better off if all relays are closed. -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: RBL report..
On 26 Mar 2000, Craig Brozefsky wrote: It's just an illustration of the problems of attempting to enforce your preferred policies upon others. I'd call it self-defense, really. -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
stuffit expander?
Hello, Is there any debian package (or in fact Unix tool at all) that allows uncompression of Mac .sit (stuffit) archives? Nils -- Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's wise' attitude. --- Zap Brannigan
Re: Mozilla
Heck no, I really don't want any debian install scripts messing in MY home directory! On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Kenneth Scharf wrote: If this works, (and it seem too) then It would have been a good idea for the package script to have done this when debconf ran during the update. (IE check for an install of M13 and then delete any mozilla profiles with the option of creating a backup copy first). --- Nils Jeppe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delete your preferences of M13, restart mozilla. You'll get the create profile wizard, and then mozilla works. Yes, it's still alpha software, why? ;-) On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Kenneth Scharf wrote: My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run this morning grabbed a new version of mozilla. It no longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault. Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites : Begin Profile Manager : Command Line Options : Begin Profile Manager : Command Line Options : End Profile Manager : GetProfileDir Profile Manager : GetProfileDir Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites : End Segmentation fault = Amateur Radio, when all else fails! http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or . __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. -- Amy = Amateur Radio, when all else fails! http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or . __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com -- Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. -- Amy
Re: Secret Holy Code revealed to Seekers of Truth!
I rest my case. ;-) Best wishes, Nils -- Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. -- Amy
Re: Mozilla
Delete your preferences of M13, restart mozilla. You'll get the create profile wizard, and then mozilla works. Yes, it's still alpha software, why? ;-) On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Kenneth Scharf wrote: My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run this morning grabbed a new version of mozilla. It no longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault. Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites : Begin Profile Manager : Command Line Options : Begin Profile Manager : Command Line Options : End Profile Manager : GetProfileDir Profile Manager : GetProfileDir Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites : End Segmentation fault = Amateur Radio, when all else fails! http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or . __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. -- Amy
Re: magnetic synchronous motor water pumps
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Jules Bean wrote: Faking mail is not something which should be undertaken trivially. Well call it fudging, if you will. ;) Making valid and useful actions impossible is not the way to fight spam. To fight spam, our spam-masters work quite hard to block open relays, etc. Alright, I really don't care as long as I don't get it in my mailbox. ;-) One possible technique we could employ is to require that the list address appear visibly in the headers (to: or cc:). This would prevent Bcc'ing the lists which is a shame (and care would need to be taken with -private, which is also security), but it might be worth it. This is hardly a real solution. Spammers still could post stuff to the list. Do you use Orbs? -- Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. -- Amy
