VirtualHosts
Thanks for everyone for suggestions. I have used Listen and VirtualHosts directives. Let me show you my dns files for two sites: First one is primary which is, say abc.net the second one is VirtualHost xyz.net. The dns files resides on server ns1.abc.net the first dns file is abc.hosts and following is its configuration: INNSns1.abc.net. INNSns2.abc.net. ns1INA192.55.34.3 ns2INA192.55.34.4 .. www.abc.net.INCNAMEns1.abc.net. The second file for virtual host is xzz.hosts and following is its configuration: INNSns1.abc.net. INNSns2.abc.net. xyz.netIN A192.55.34.5 .. www.xyz.net. IN CNAMExyz.net. In my /etc/apache all configuration files are set for my primary site www.abc.net. Then I used the following configuration for virtual host site www.xyz.net: Listen 192.55.34.5:80 NameVirtualHost 192.55.34.5:80 DocumentRoot /var/www/xyz ServerName www.xyz.net With this configurartion none of my site comes up. Can someone tell me where I am making mistake. Thanks. Abu Umair
Sharing bandwidth between two interfaces
Hello all. I have been playing around with CBQ, cbq.init et al for a while, and have got some impressive results. It works after all!... I have used SFQ as the leaf queuing discipline on all my classes and created a bounded class with the total bandwidth I wanted to share (64K), from which unbounded subclasses borrow bandwidth. It works great. But now I've got a problem... This setup works well when there is only one input interface and one output interface. But my interest now is to share the internet connection between two subnets, each one attached to a different interface. The problem is that the 64K class must be attached to one of the interfaces, so I think it will not work if I try to use it from the other ethernet interface. How can I solve this? Maybe with some type of tunneling? teql maybe? Many thanks in advance, -- José Carlos Ramírez Pérez Área de Internet y Telecomunicaciones mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ISOTROL S.A. Avda. de la innovación nº 1, 3ª plta, 41020 Sevilla Tel.:+34 955 036 800 - Fax:+34 955 036 849 (Spain) web: http://www.isotrol.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
The original question was about IP based virtual hosts. These are the settings for name based virtual host. Correct, though. Still I prefer to have the IP in the virtual host directive. Reduces DNS traffic somewhat and is more reliable as far as I can tell. Apache by default responds to *all* IPs on port 80, so you could possibly skip the Listen directives unless you want some special ports like Listen 10.0.0.1:443 See http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/core.html#listen http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/core.html#port and http://httpd.apache.org/docs/dns-caveats.html BTW. Altough you can set a default vhost by I didn't find this to be very reliable. I usually simply make sure the *first* vhost entry is somethings "defaulty" like our company's web page as Apache uses the first vhost if no server name matches. Cheers, Marcel Peter Billson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 13:24: > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > Be sure that you have a NameVirtualHost directive before your > and be sure you have your Listen directive set to the > IP(s)/ports you are listening on > > basically use something like: > > Listen 192.168.1.1:80 > Listen 192.168.1.2:80 > Listen 192.168.1.1:443 > > NameVirtualHost 192.168.1.1:80 > > > ServerName foo.bar.com > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /www/bar > > > NameVirtualHost 192.168.1.2:80 > > > ServerName www.abc.com > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > You can have multiple VirtualHost directives under each > NameVirtualHost directive if you want to share IPs between domains. > You can substitute names that DNS can translate to IPs in the > NameVirtualHost directives if you prefer. > > This is a very short example and there are a lot more options I would > add to my virtual domains if I were you. > > Pete > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Virtual Hosts
Erich Kolb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 11:10: > Dont you still have to add DNS entries? Well, sure... Without a DNS entry no request would reach your server. Cheers, Marcel > -Original Message- > From: Y2KNET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > > > I have used the same configuration: > > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www > ServerName www.smallco.com > ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log > TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log > > > But still it loads the primary site. > > - Original Message - > From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM > Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > > > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html > > esp. > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html > > > > basically use something like > > > > ServerName www.abc.dom > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > > > > Cheers, Marcel > > > > Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > > > > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > > > Abu Umair. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VirtualHosts
> Listen 192.55.34.5:80 > NameVirtualHost 192.55.34.5:80 > > > DocumentRoot /var/www/xyz > ServerName www.xyz.net > NameVirtualHost means that you're defining the virtual hosts by name. Change the VirtualHost line to read: And make sure you use: ServerName xyz.net ServerAlias www.xyz.net Otherwise people like me get very cranky. :) - Jeff -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://lazarus.aphid.net/ -- For a list of points detailing how technology has failed to improve our lives, please press 3. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
Note the difference between and The first is the setting for name based virtual hosts, i.e. various virtual hosts sharing one IP (make sure you have one or many "NameVirtualHost 10.0.0.1" as well) - in contrast to ip based virtual host where each virtual host has it's own IP. Cheers, Marcel Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 9:43: > I have used the same configuration: > > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www > ServerName www.smallco.com > ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log > TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log > > > But still it loads the primary site. > > - Original Message - > From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM > Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > > > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html > > esp. > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html > > > > basically use something like > > > > ServerName www.abc.dom > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > > > > Cheers, Marcel > > > > Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > > > > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VirtualHosts
Thanks for everyone for suggestions. I have used Listen and VirtualHosts directives. Let me show you my dns files for two sites: First one is primary which is, say abc.net the second one is VirtualHost xyz.net. The dns files resides on server ns1.abc.net the first dns file is abc.hosts and following is its configuration: INNSns1.abc.net. INNSns2.abc.net. ns1INA192.55.34.3 ns2INA192.55.34.4 .. www.abc.net.INCNAMEns1.abc.net. The second file for virtual host is xzz.hosts and following is its configuration: INNSns1.abc.net. INNSns2.abc.net. xyz.netIN A192.55.34.5 .. www.xyz.net. IN CNAMExyz.net. In my /etc/apache all configuration files are set for my primary site www.abc.net. Then I used the following configuration for virtual host site www.xyz.net: Listen 192.55.34.5:80 NameVirtualHost 192.55.34.5:80 DocumentRoot /var/www/xyz ServerName www.xyz.net With this configurartion none of my site comes up. Can someone tell me where I am making mistake. Thanks. Abu Umair -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: voip textmode app
On Tue, 3 Apr 101, Allen Ahoffman wrote: > can someone recommend a voip program I can use in Linux from the command > line? Andy Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> supplies the following: www.openh323.org - command line client for quicknet for Linux HTH -- Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.startext.co.uk/ - Share your knowledge. It's one way to achieve immortality. -
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:42:01AM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > Sendmail *is* the kitchen sink of MTAs [...] if sendmail is the kitchen-sink then postfix is the dish-washer. an hour of drudgery with your hands in filthy water versus push-button automation. :-) craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0 Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:42:01AM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > > * it's slow. > > * it doesn't scale well. > > Short: FUD, spread by one who's not kept up with current developements - > Look at whats being done in 8.12 wrt multi-queues and > multi-runners/queue. 8.12 is faster than 8.9.3 ever was (much faster > than 8.10/11), and has a hell of lot more function that's not saying a lot. > Long: Sendmail was basically in `maintenance' mode for several years, > and a few of its competitors (who didn't have legacy concerns) were able > to leapfrog it in performance and scalability. Sendmail has had quite > a bit of rework... read as: bugger all was done on sendmail for years until the authors noticed that: a) people had got sick of all it's problems and written vastly superior alternatives like qmail and then postfix and, more importantly, b) there was a chance to become dot-com millionaires. too little, too late. > No, but it has come a long way since then, a significant portion has > been rewritten since 8.9.3 The last incident I can recall turned out > to actually be the kernel capability bug... too little, too late. > > * it's configuration language is overly complex for the task at hand > > (the m4 macros helped a lot, but it's still way more complex than it > > needs to be) > > Depends upon the task at hand eh? For a end-node, sure sendmail.cf > hacking isn't needed - sendmail.cf hacking is never needed. anything you can do with .cf hackery can be done in postfix with plain-english configuration and appropriate use of map files. > but the provided m4 features cover that pretty > well with FEATURE(nullclient, `') -- what could be easier. "relayhost = smart.host.example.com" in /etc/postfix/main.cf and you've got to admit - m4 isn't exactly the easiest or most pleasant of languages to work with...in fact, it's ugly. and that's sendmail's *easier* configuration style. > Sendmail *is* the kitchen sink of MTAs - and yes, there is a cost to > that, but significant tuning *is* going on... The other side is that > with the kitchen sink comes everything: you miss the point. you don't *need* anything near as complicated as sendmail.cf or even sendmail.mc to provide the features of sendmail. > Mixing/matching of DB, LDAP, text, HESIOD, PH (not on Debian), etc. > for *ANY* map: aliases, access, etc. postfix does all that and more: including mysql, postgres maps, posix and pcre regexp maps and more. > Why suffer with `sendmail compatible' when you can have the > `REAL thing'? because the 'REAL thing' sucks. postfix isn't sendmail-compatible because sendmail is the pinnacle of MTAs and must be emulated. postfix is sendmail-compatible because there are a lot of people running sendmail systems who will not change from their legacy software if it requires a complete re-implementation of their mail system...qmail proved that. why suffer with sendmail when you can have postfix, which can do everything that sendmail can do only faster and better and securely? look, if you're happy to use obsolete software that's fine by me, doesn't bother me at all...but to insist that it's anywhere near as good as the alternatives is annoying and ridiculous. sendmail had it's day. that day is over. it should just retire gracefully. the phrase "mutton dressed up as lamb" seems appropriate - sendmail's recent facelifts are like an old woman whacking on way too much makeup and pretending/insisting she's as young and pretty as the 20 year olds. it really doesn't fool many people. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0 Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:42:01AM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > Mixing/matching of DB, LDAP, text, HESIOD, PH (not on Debian), etc. > for *ANY* map: aliases, access, etc. Ah, but postfix does that, and does it better, adding posix and pcre regex's and SQL or whatever to the mix. > Why suffer with `sendmail compatible' when you can have the `REAL > thing'? Because Postfix is simpler, therefore easier to audit and trust. It runs less stuff as root. It isn't a fight to make it run chrooted (and even does so as default in Debian) and generally is trivial to make it do stupid mta tricks. After installing it on a couple play machines, it was the obvious replacement for sendmail... fast, trustworthy, and a pleasure to play with. (The code is actually understandable!) Oh, and I'd trust Wietse with a root shell on any of my machines.
Re: voip textmode app
On Tue, 3 Apr 101, Allen Ahoffman wrote: > can someone recommend a voip program I can use in Linux from the command > line? Andy Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> supplies the following: www.openh323.org - command line client for quicknet for Linux HTH -- Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.startext.co.uk/ - Share your knowledge. It's one way to achieve immortality. - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:42:01AM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > Sendmail *is* the kitchen sink of MTAs [...] if sendmail is the kitchen-sink then postfix is the dish-washer. an hour of drudgery with your hands in filthy water versus push-button automation. :-) craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0 Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:42:01AM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > > * it's slow. > > * it doesn't scale well. > > Short: FUD, spread by one who's not kept up with current developements - > Look at whats being done in 8.12 wrt multi-queues and > multi-runners/queue. 8.12 is faster than 8.9.3 ever was (much faster > than 8.10/11), and has a hell of lot more function that's not saying a lot. > Long: Sendmail was basically in `maintenance' mode for several years, > and a few of its competitors (who didn't have legacy concerns) were able > to leapfrog it in performance and scalability. Sendmail has had quite > a bit of rework... read as: bugger all was done on sendmail for years until the authors noticed that: a) people had got sick of all it's problems and written vastly superior alternatives like qmail and then postfix and, more importantly, b) there was a chance to become dot-com millionaires. too little, too late. > No, but it has come a long way since then, a significant portion has > been rewritten since 8.9.3 The last incident I can recall turned out > to actually be the kernel capability bug... too little, too late. > > * it's configuration language is overly complex for the task at hand > > (the m4 macros helped a lot, but it's still way more complex than it > > needs to be) > > Depends upon the task at hand eh? For a end-node, sure sendmail.cf > hacking isn't needed - sendmail.cf hacking is never needed. anything you can do with .cf hackery can be done in postfix with plain-english configuration and appropriate use of map files. > but the provided m4 features cover that pretty > well with FEATURE(nullclient, `') -- what could be easier. "relayhost = smart.host.example.com" in /etc/postfix/main.cf and you've got to admit - m4 isn't exactly the easiest or most pleasant of languages to work with...in fact, it's ugly. and that's sendmail's *easier* configuration style. > Sendmail *is* the kitchen sink of MTAs - and yes, there is a cost to > that, but significant tuning *is* going on... The other side is that > with the kitchen sink comes everything: you miss the point. you don't *need* anything near as complicated as sendmail.cf or even sendmail.mc to provide the features of sendmail. > Mixing/matching of DB, LDAP, text, HESIOD, PH (not on Debian), etc. > for *ANY* map: aliases, access, etc. postfix does all that and more: including mysql, postgres maps, posix and pcre regexp maps and more. > Why suffer with `sendmail compatible' when you can have the > `REAL thing'? because the 'REAL thing' sucks. postfix isn't sendmail-compatible because sendmail is the pinnacle of MTAs and must be emulated. postfix is sendmail-compatible because there are a lot of people running sendmail systems who will not change from their legacy software if it requires a complete re-implementation of their mail system...qmail proved that. why suffer with sendmail when you can have postfix, which can do everything that sendmail can do only faster and better and securely? look, if you're happy to use obsolete software that's fine by me, doesn't bother me at all...but to insist that it's anywhere near as good as the alternatives is annoying and ridiculous. sendmail had it's day. that day is over. it should just retire gracefully. the phrase "mutton dressed up as lamb" seems appropriate - sendmail's recent facelifts are like an old woman whacking on way too much makeup and pretending/insisting she's as young and pretty as the 20 year olds. it really doesn't fool many people. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0 Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voip textmode app
can someone recommend a voip program I can use in Linux from the command line? e.g. voicecall ip and it brings up textmode app to talk over the line I'm blind and don't want to mess with windows or X.
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:42:01AM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > Mixing/matching of DB, LDAP, text, HESIOD, PH (not on Debian), etc. > for *ANY* map: aliases, access, etc. Ah, but postfix does that, and does it better, adding posix and pcre regex's and SQL or whatever to the mix. > Why suffer with `sendmail compatible' when you can have the `REAL > thing'? Because Postfix is simpler, therefore easier to audit and trust. It runs less stuff as root. It isn't a fight to make it run chrooted (and even does so as default in Debian) and generally is trivial to make it do stupid mta tricks. After installing it on a couple play machines, it was the obvious replacement for sendmail... fast, trustworthy, and a pleasure to play with. (The code is actually understandable!) Oh, and I'd trust Wietse with a root shell on any of my machines. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fax Server
Hi Abel, hi Peter, On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Peter Billson wrote: > Abel Gascón wrote: > > > > I would like someone recommends me the best free Fax server and tell me > > something about features. > > > > Thanks in advance, Abel > > I like Hylafax ( http://www.hylafax.org ). > > - Easy to configure > - Works with basically all modems > - Supports multiple modems per server > - Allows configuration of allowable destinations (i.e. prevent toll > faxes) > - Sends *useful* e-mail notices of problems/completion > - Plays nice with other modem programs > - Has a cool name - Can send SMS-Messages to cellphones and pagers - Can be used with an ISDN-Card (Sedlbauer Speedfax+ PCI - Has client support for virtually every OS - Is rock solid. regards Torsten Krueger > > Pete > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Media Online Internet Services & Marketing GmbH Torsten Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] fon: 49-231-5575100fax: 49-231-55751098 Ruhrallee 39 D-44137 Dortmund
Re: Fax Server
Abel Gascón wrote: > > I would like someone recommends me the best free Fax server and tell me > something about features. > > Thanks in advance, Abel I like Hylafax ( http://www.hylafax.org ). - Easy to configure - Works with basically all modems - Supports multiple modems per server - Allows configuration of allowable destinations (i.e. prevent toll faxes) - Sends *useful* e-mail notices of problems/completion - Plays nice with other modem programs - Has a cool name Pete
Fax Server
I would like someone recommends me the best free Fax server and tell me something about features. Thanks in advance, Abel
Re: sendmail&smart host
I sent you a linux.mc. I am missing in the debian-stuff quickinfos like the docomentations *in* the conf-files. Or the SuSE-Database. This is very helpful. Of course I have the famous sendmail-book. By the way, I tried the make with 'procmail' - the server refuses mails from outside. I copied back the /etc/mail, restarted, the old config doesnt work anymore... What confuses me, that I get in the logs from the sending server 'Connection reset by peer '- I dont see anything on the recieving debian-server. I think, I will have a long night... martin Richard A Nelson wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Martin Tanzer wrote: > > > Aha, thanx for the explanation. I am an experianced SuSE administrator and I > > feel pretty firm in the sendmail.cf. I start prefering debian now (as a > > Server ;-) - but I miss the documentation... It took me hours to find out, > > that the configuratuion of procmail in the sendmail.cf is missing. After I > > tried OSTYPE(mklinux) I was very happy to find the sendmail.cf I am used to. > > In SuSE the linux.mc is well documented and very easy to handle. Also it is > > new to me to build the sendmail.cf with make - I am used to 'm4 < linux.mc > > > test.cf' > > Cool, you might be able to help me ;-) > > * What documentation do you find missing? (have you installed sendmail-doc)? > * Could you possibly send me a SuSE linux.mc ? > > Yes, I'm working to make the m4 method work - gotta put some includes in > sendmail.mc and cleanup ostype/debian.m4 > > > OK, I take the hint and try it with OSTYPE(debian). > > Thanks, and if you find any problems, please get them to me... > > -- > Rick Nelson > Techical solutions are not a matter of voting. Two legislations in the US > states almost decided that the value of Pi be 3.14, exactly. Popular vote > does not make for a correct solution. > -- Manoj Srivastava > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voip textmode app
can someone recommend a voip program I can use in Linux from the command line? e.g. voicecall ip and it brings up textmode app to talk over the line I'm blind and don't want to mess with windows or X. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:24:36PM -0400, Peter Billson wrote: > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > Be sure that you have a NameVirtualHost directive before your > and be sure you have your Listen directive set to the > IP(s)/ports you are listening on > > basically use something like: > > Listen 192.168.1.1:80 > Listen 192.168.1.2:80 > Listen 192.168.1.1:443 > > NameVirtualHost 192.168.1.1:80 > > ^^^ I think it's more clear to use the IP address specified in the NameVirtualHost clause here. Not only is the config more readable, but you reduce the possibility that DNS issues will prevent apache from starting. Using the colon:port notation is very useful when you want to bind one apache to multiple ports. Last I looked this wasn't clearly explained on the apache website. -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton pgp7iBEryEf0B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sendmail&smart host
Aha, thanx for the explanation. I am an experianced SuSE administrator and I
feel pretty firm in the sendmail.cf. I start prefering debian now (as a
Server ;-) - but I miss the documentation... It took me hours to find out,
that the configuratuion of procmail in the sendmail.cf is missing. After I
tried OSTYPE(mklinux) I was very happy to find the sendmail.cf I am used to.
In SuSE the linux.mc is well documented and very easy to handle. Also it is
new to me to build the sendmail.cf with make - I am used to 'm4 < linux.mc >
test.cf'
OK, I take the hint and try it with OSTYPE(debian).
martin
Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Martin Tanzer wrote:
>
> > > > I changed in /etc/mail/sendmail.mc:
> > > >
> > > > OSTYPE(mklinux)dnl
> > >
> > > while ( ! nauseated ) { print "Don't do this" };
> >
> > hmmm. Why?
>
> sigh, I'm sorry - I hate it when people do that to me... I meant to
> come back and fill that in before hitting `send' (too much
> multi-tasking, not enough swap space).
>
> Executive summary:
> OSTYPE(xxx) is where paths/directories specific to an OS are defined.
> Using the wrong xxx is recipe for disaster.
>
> The longer version:
> OSTYPE(debian) is eventually going away, but for the nonce, it contains
> a boatload of stuff specific to the Debian build of sendmail - the most
> important of which are the paths to files/directories used by sendmail.
>
> Now, some of those paths are compiled into sendmail, and some aren't -
> in general, leaving out an entry isn't too bad, but putting one in will
> override the compiled in defaults.
>
> The net effect, is that mklinux (and others) defines files/dirs to be
> in places that probably aren't built by the Debian package ! The
> results range from harmless to catastrophic - depending upon which
> file/dir is mismarked.
>
> Does that make more sense?
> --
> Rick Nelson
> Techical solutions are not a matter of voting. Two legislations in the US
> states almost decided that the value of Pi be 3.14, exactly. Popular vote
> does not make for a correct solution.
> -- Manoj Srivastava
Re: Virtual Hosts
I haven't really followed this discussion so this might have been said. I have this configuration for apache: You must set a NameVirtualHost NameVirtualHost 204.73.64.54 ServerName company.com ServerAlias company.com www.company.com DocumentRoot /var/virtual/company ErrorLog /var/log/apache/virtual/company/error.log Customlog /var/log/apache/virtual/company/transfer.log full Options ExecCgi You can get more documentation about virtual IP or named based hosting at apache.org. Matt Y2KNET wrote: > I have used the same configuration: > > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www > ServerName www.smallco.com > ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log > TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log > > > But still it loads the primary site. > > - Original Message - > From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM > Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html > > esp. > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html > > > > basically use something like > > > > ServerName www.abc.dom > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > > > > Cheers, Marcel > > > > Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > > > > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
> I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > site, it brings the primary site. > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > Abu Umair. > Be sure that you have a NameVirtualHost directive before your and be sure you have your Listen directive set to the IP(s)/ports you are listening on basically use something like: Listen 192.168.1.1:80 Listen 192.168.1.2:80 Listen 192.168.1.1:443 NameVirtualHost 192.168.1.1:80 ServerName foo.bar.com ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /www/bar NameVirtualHost 192.168.1.2:80 ServerName www.abc.com ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /www/abc You can have multiple VirtualHost directives under each NameVirtualHost directive if you want to share IPs between domains. You can substitute names that DNS can translate to IPs in the NameVirtualHost directives if you prefer. This is a very short example and there are a lot more options I would add to my virtual domains if I were you. Pete
Re: Virtual Hosts
Do you sleep ??? Open your eyes !!! Am 09:43 03.04.2001 -0500 haben Y2KNET geschrieben: > >I have used the same configuration: > > ^^^ Use the IP address !!! >ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] >DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www >ServerName www.smallco.com >ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log >TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log > > >But still it loads the primary site. > >- Original Message - >From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM >Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > > >> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html >> esp. >> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html >> >> basically use something like >> >> ServerName www.abc.dom >> ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> DocumentRoot /www/abc >> >> >> Cheers, Marcel >> >> Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: >> >> > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put >> > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used >> > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number >> > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host >> > site, it brings the primary site. >> > >> > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup >> > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. >> > >> > Abu Umair. >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ## Get the Power of Debian/GNU-Linux ##
RE: Virtual Hosts
Dont you still have to add DNS entries? -Original Message- From: Y2KNET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-isp@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts I have used the same configuration: ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www ServerName www.smallco.com ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log But still it loads the primary site. - Original Message - From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html > esp. > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html > > basically use something like > > ServerName www.abc.dom > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > Cheers, Marcel > > Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fax Server
Hi Abel, hi Peter, On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Peter Billson wrote: > Abel Gascón wrote: > > > > I would like someone recommends me the best free Fax server and tell me > > something about features. > > > > Thanks in advance, Abel > > I like Hylafax ( http://www.hylafax.org ). > > - Easy to configure > - Works with basically all modems > - Supports multiple modems per server > - Allows configuration of allowable destinations (i.e. prevent toll > faxes) > - Sends *useful* e-mail notices of problems/completion > - Plays nice with other modem programs > - Has a cool name - Can send SMS-Messages to cellphones and pagers - Can be used with an ISDN-Card (Sedlbauer Speedfax+ PCI - Has client support for virtually every OS - Is rock solid. regards Torsten Krueger > > Pete > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Media Online Internet Services & Marketing GmbH Torsten Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] fon: 49-231-5575100fax: 49-231-55751098 Ruhrallee 39 D-44137 Dortmund -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fax Server
Abel Gascón wrote: > > I would like someone recommends me the best free Fax server and tell me > something about features. > > Thanks in advance, Abel I like Hylafax ( http://www.hylafax.org ). - Easy to configure - Works with basically all modems - Supports multiple modems per server - Allows configuration of allowable destinations (i.e. prevent toll faxes) - Sends *useful* e-mail notices of problems/completion - Plays nice with other modem programs - Has a cool name Pete -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
I have used the same configuration: ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www ServerName www.smallco.com ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log But still it loads the primary site. - Original Message - From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html > esp. > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html > > basically use something like > > ServerName www.abc.dom > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > Cheers, Marcel > > Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Fax Server
I would like someone recommends me the best free Fax server and tell me something about features. Thanks in advance, Abel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sendmail&smart host
I sent you a linux.mc. I am missing in the debian-stuff quickinfos like the docomentations *in* the conf-files. Or the SuSE-Database. This is very helpful. Of course I have the famous sendmail-book. By the way, I tried the make with 'procmail' - the server refuses mails from outside. I copied back the /etc/mail, restarted, the old config doesnt work anymore... What confuses me, that I get in the logs from the sending server 'Connection reset by peer '- I dont see anything on the recieving debian-server. I think, I will have a long night... martin Richard A Nelson wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Martin Tanzer wrote: > > > Aha, thanx for the explanation. I am an experianced SuSE administrator and I > > feel pretty firm in the sendmail.cf. I start prefering debian now (as a > > Server ;-) - but I miss the documentation... It took me hours to find out, > > that the configuratuion of procmail in the sendmail.cf is missing. After I > > tried OSTYPE(mklinux) I was very happy to find the sendmail.cf I am used to. > > In SuSE the linux.mc is well documented and very easy to handle. Also it is > > new to me to build the sendmail.cf with make - I am used to 'm4 < linux.mc > > > test.cf' > > Cool, you might be able to help me ;-) > > * What documentation do you find missing? (have you installed sendmail-doc)? > * Could you possibly send me a SuSE linux.mc ? > > Yes, I'm working to make the m4 method work - gotta put some includes in > sendmail.mc and cleanup ostype/debian.m4 > > > OK, I take the hint and try it with OSTYPE(debian). > > Thanks, and if you find any problems, please get them to me... > > -- > Rick Nelson > Techical solutions are not a matter of voting. Two legislations in the US > states almost decided that the value of Pi be 3.14, exactly. Popular vote > does not make for a correct solution. > -- Manoj Srivastava > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:24:36PM -0400, Peter Billson wrote: > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > Be sure that you have a NameVirtualHost directive before your > and be sure you have your Listen directive set to the > IP(s)/ports you are listening on > > basically use something like: > > Listen 192.168.1.1:80 > Listen 192.168.1.2:80 > Listen 192.168.1.1:443 > > NameVirtualHost 192.168.1.1:80 > > ^^^ I think it's more clear to use the IP address specified in the NameVirtualHost clause here. Not only is the config more readable, but you reduce the possibility that DNS issues will prevent apache from starting. Using the colon:port notation is very useful when you want to bind one apache to multiple ports. Last I looked this wasn't clearly explained on the apache website. -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton PGP signature
Re: sendmail&smart host
Aha, thanx for the explanation. I am an experianced SuSE administrator and I
feel pretty firm in the sendmail.cf. I start prefering debian now (as a
Server ;-) - but I miss the documentation... It took me hours to find out,
that the configuratuion of procmail in the sendmail.cf is missing. After I
tried OSTYPE(mklinux) I was very happy to find the sendmail.cf I am used to.
In SuSE the linux.mc is well documented and very easy to handle. Also it is
new to me to build the sendmail.cf with make - I am used to 'm4 < linux.mc >
test.cf'
OK, I take the hint and try it with OSTYPE(debian).
martin
Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Martin Tanzer wrote:
>
> > > > I changed in /etc/mail/sendmail.mc:
> > > >
> > > > OSTYPE(mklinux)dnl
> > >
> > > while ( ! nauseated ) { print "Don't do this" };
> >
> > hmmm. Why?
>
> sigh, I'm sorry - I hate it when people do that to me... I meant to
> come back and fill that in before hitting `send' (too much
> multi-tasking, not enough swap space).
>
> Executive summary:
> OSTYPE(xxx) is where paths/directories specific to an OS are defined.
> Using the wrong xxx is recipe for disaster.
>
> The longer version:
> OSTYPE(debian) is eventually going away, but for the nonce, it contains
> a boatload of stuff specific to the Debian build of sendmail - the most
> important of which are the paths to files/directories used by sendmail.
>
> Now, some of those paths are compiled into sendmail, and some aren't -
> in general, leaving out an entry isn't too bad, but putting one in will
> override the compiled in defaults.
>
> The net effect, is that mklinux (and others) defines files/dirs to be
> in places that probably aren't built by the Debian package ! The
> results range from harmless to catastrophic - depending upon which
> file/dir is mismarked.
>
> Does that make more sense?
> --
> Rick Nelson
> Techical solutions are not a matter of voting. Two legislations in the US
> states almost decided that the value of Pi be 3.14, exactly. Popular vote
> does not make for a correct solution.
> -- Manoj Srivastava
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
I haven't really followed this discussion so this might have been said. I have this configuration for apache: You must set a NameVirtualHost NameVirtualHost 204.73.64.54 ServerName company.com ServerAlias company.com www.company.com DocumentRoot /var/virtual/company ErrorLog /var/log/apache/virtual/company/error.log Customlog /var/log/apache/virtual/company/transfer.log full Options ExecCgi You can get more documentation about virtual IP or named based hosting at apache.org. Matt Y2KNET wrote: > I have used the same configuration: > > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www > ServerName www.smallco.com > ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log > TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log > > > But still it loads the primary site. > > - Original Message - > From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM > Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html > > esp. > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html > > > > basically use something like > > > > ServerName www.abc.dom > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > > > > Cheers, Marcel > > > > Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > > > > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
> I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > site, it brings the primary site. > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > Abu Umair. > Be sure that you have a NameVirtualHost directive before your and be sure you have your Listen directive set to the IP(s)/ports you are listening on basically use something like: Listen 192.168.1.1:80 Listen 192.168.1.2:80 Listen 192.168.1.1:443 NameVirtualHost 192.168.1.1:80 ServerName foo.bar.com ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /www/bar NameVirtualHost 192.168.1.2:80 ServerName www.abc.com ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /www/abc You can have multiple VirtualHost directives under each NameVirtualHost directive if you want to share IPs between domains. You can substitute names that DNS can translate to IPs in the NameVirtualHost directives if you prefer. This is a very short example and there are a lot more options I would add to my virtual domains if I were you. Pete -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
Do you sleep ??? Open your eyes !!! Am 09:43 03.04.2001 -0500 haben Y2KNET geschrieben: > >I have used the same configuration: > > ^^^ Use the IP address !!! >ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] >DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www >ServerName www.smallco.com >ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log >TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log > > >But still it loads the primary site. > >- Original Message - >From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM >Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > > >> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html >> esp. >> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html >> >> basically use something like >> >> ServerName www.abc.dom >> ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> DocumentRoot /www/abc >> >> >> Cheers, Marcel >> >> Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: >> >> > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put >> > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used >> > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number >> > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host >> > site, it brings the primary site. >> > >> > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup >> > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. >> > >> > Abu Umair. >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ## Get the Power of Debian/GNU-Linux ## -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Virtual Hosts
Dont you still have to add DNS entries? -Original Message- From: Y2KNET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts I have used the same configuration: ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www ServerName www.smallco.com ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log But still it loads the primary site. - Original Message - From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html > esp. > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html > > basically use something like > > ServerName www.abc.dom > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > Cheers, Marcel > > Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Hosts
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html esp. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html basically use something like ServerName www.abc.dom ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /www/abc Cheers, Marcel Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > site, it brings the primary site. > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > Abu Umair. >
Re: Virtual Hosts
I have used the same configuration: ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /groups/smallco/www ServerName www.smallco.com ErrorLog /groups/smallco/logs/error_log TransferLog /groups/smallco/logs/access_log But still it loads the primary site. - Original Message - From: Marcel Hicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html > esp. > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html > > basically use something like > > ServerName www.abc.dom > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /www/abc > > > Cheers, Marcel > > Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > > > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > > site, it brings the primary site. > > > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > > > Abu Umair. > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Virtual Hosts
I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put more IP based virtual hosts. I have used the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host site, it brings the primary site. I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup VirtualHost on 2.2r2. Abu Umair.
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > So, what happened to sendmail? How did it earn it's fall from grace? > When I got into it, sendmail was it. I've never looked closely at the > mail system since. * it's slow. * it doesn't scale well. if you've ever seen sendmail boxes repeatedly crash under the load of processing bounces from a 30,000+ subscriber mailing list you'll understand what this means. by way of contrast, the same mailing list on the same machine but with postfix as the MTA ran perfectly fine (no crashes, no problems, and all the mail *delivered* in a fraction of the time sendmail took) and it even scaled up to 450,000+ subscribers over the next 6 months or so before we had to switch the MLM from smartlist to listar. smartlist also doesn't scale very gracefully...but that's another issue. * it suffers from security-flaw-of-the-month-itis. sendmail was not designed with security in mind (the net was a much nicer place back then), and it shows. * it's configuration language is overly complex for the task at hand (the m4 macros helped a lot, but it's still way more complex than it needs to be) * postfix is a nearly drop-in replacement for it which doesn't suffer from any of the above problems. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0 Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
Re: Virtual Hosts
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/index.html esp. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/ip-based.html basically use something like ServerName www.abc.dom ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /www/abc Cheers, Marcel Y2KNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Apr 2001, at 8:37: > I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put > more IP based virtual hosts. I have used > the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number > to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host > site, it brings the primary site. > > I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup > VirtualHost on 2.2r2. > > Abu Umair. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Virtual Hosts
I have installed Debian 2.2r2 and now trying to put more IP based virtual hosts. I have used the VirtualHost directives, and gave the IP number to each site. But when I tried to look on the Virtual host site, it brings the primary site. I will appreciate, if I get information about how to setup VirtualHost on 2.2r2. Abu Umair.
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
So, what happened to sendmail? How did it earn it's fall from grace? When I got into it, sendmail was it. I've never looked closely at the mail system since. ---==--- ___/``\___ 0100
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > So, what happened to sendmail? How did it earn it's fall from grace? > When I got into it, sendmail was it. I've never looked closely at the > mail system since. * it's slow. * it doesn't scale well. if you've ever seen sendmail boxes repeatedly crash under the load of processing bounces from a 30,000+ subscriber mailing list you'll understand what this means. by way of contrast, the same mailing list on the same machine but with postfix as the MTA ran perfectly fine (no crashes, no problems, and all the mail *delivered* in a fraction of the time sendmail took) and it even scaled up to 450,000+ subscribers over the next 6 months or so before we had to switch the MLM from smartlist to listar. smartlist also doesn't scale very gracefully...but that's another issue. * it suffers from security-flaw-of-the-month-itis. sendmail was not designed with security in mind (the net was a much nicer place back then), and it shows. * it's configuration language is overly complex for the task at hand (the m4 macros helped a lot, but it's still way more complex than it needs to be) * postfix is a nearly drop-in replacement for it which doesn't suffer from any of the above problems. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0 Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
So, what happened to sendmail? How did it earn it's fall from grace? When I got into it, sendmail was it. I've never looked closely at the mail system since. ---==--- ___/``\___ 0100 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to restrict remote user login in a per user basis ?
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 04:45:40PM -0400, Felipe Alvarez Harnecker wrote: > > > > > > Subject says it all. > > > > I'm using ssh and telnet-ssl for remote logins but i have some users > > that shoud do a local login. > > Maybe you could whip up a little shell script to check the tty the user > is logging in on (say wack it in /etc/profile) and then compare that > with a list of local / non-local tty's? If you're using a recent Debian-distibution you can use PAM and /etc/security/access.conf to restrict access to your system. That even gives you the possibility to allow ftp for all users and deny ssh or telnet only to some (that's what I use it for...) Greetings Peter -- Peter Lohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel.: 05207/920446 www.openstuff.de - Linux-Stofftiere, Linux-Mousepads, Linux-Tastaturen, Koffein Getränke - alles was den Linuxfan begeistert :-) --> We are but packets in the internet of life -- Mike (UF)
Re: sendmail&smart host
Richard A Nelson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Martin Tanzer wrote:
>
> > I changed in /etc/mail/sendmail.mc:
> >
> > OSTYPE(mklinux)dnl
>
> while ( ! nauseated ) { print "Don't do this" };
hmmm. Why?
martin
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:31:27AM -0400, Haim Dimermanas wrote: > Foreword : I *really* don't want to start a flame war on that. I > am just _very_ curious. I am currently using Exim. I don't really > know a whole lot about it. I just think that it's nice to have a > human readable config file and a good documentation. I am considering > switching to qmail or postfix (I don't know which one yet) and I would > love to know more. i've used pretty nearly every freely available unix MTA over the last 8 or 9 years. smail for a few years, then sendmail for a few more years, then some experimentation with zmailer and exim before settling on qmail for a year or so. then postfix came along and i just don't use anything else any more. i still have a few qmail systems, but only because it's more trouble than it's worth to convert them to postfix. all my sendmail systems got converted to postfix long ago. qmail doesn't offer anything that postfix doesn't have, but has licensing problems that limit it's usefulness and it's rate of improvement. actually, that's not quite true. the one thing that qmail has which postfix can't do is that ezmlm only works with qmail. ezmlm is a very nice mailing list manager in some ways...but not that much nicer than listar or mailman that it's worth locking yourself into qmail. i see qmail's incompatibility with other MTAs as a huge trap - and the same kind of trap as proprietary mailers, or proprietary software in generalonce you convert to it, you're basically stuck there because it's going to be an enormous pain to convert to anything else. > > > The answer? qmail :) > > I heard that answer a LOT of times. I read (please confirm) that qmail was > the best when it came to having a cluster of pop toasters and also that it > was the best when it comes to virtual hosting. After all, AOL - Yahoo - > Netscape and all are using qmail AFAIK. > > > actually, the answer is postfix - especially since the original message > > said: > > Again, from what I read, postfix's main priority was security. and speed. and a reasonable level of backwards compatibility with sendmail/exim/smail/etc. > I read your very interresting post about the differences between > qmail and postfix when it comes to licensing issues and backward > compatibility with sendmail. What I would like to know is your opinion > on how postfix performs on the following points: > > - Ease of configuration. postfix's main config file (/etc/postfix/main.cf) is plain english and well commented. it's very easy to read and understand, and the default settings are quite sensible (i.e. it will not relay by default - in fact, you have to go to a lot of trouble to misconfigure postfix before it will act as an open relay). imo, it's easier to understand and configure than exim. YMMV. exim is mostly compatible with sendmail in a very similar way - it can use the same kinds of map files. > I don't want to read a whole book to find out how I can enable relay > for a range of IP. e.g. in /etc/postfix/main.cf: mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/24 smtpd_recipient_restrictions = ..., permit_mynetworks, ... that's simplified because there are a lot of available options. mine looks something like this: smtpd_recipient_restrictions = hash:/etc/postfix/junk, reject_non_fqdn_recipient, reject_unknown_recipient_domain, reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_invalid_hostname, permit_mynetworks, reject_maps_rbl, check_relay_domains the order of the rules is significant...which is why, for example, reject_maps_rbl appears AFTER permit_mynetworks. one of the RBL services i use is the MAPS DUL and i don't want to block my own dialup users from relaying mail through the mail server. i also have header_checks and body_checks rules which use PCRE regexps to block common signs of spam and viruses (e.g. block all mail to/from [EMAIL PROTECTED], or all mail containing an executable attachment). > The fact that it is sendmail compatible scares me on that one. it doesn't use sendmail.cf or anything like it. the compatibility is that it can use the same format files that sendmail used to use - aliases, virtual, transports, etc. for some, like /etc/aliases it can use the exact same file. for others, they might need to be renamed (e.g. from /etc/mail/virtusertable to /etc/postfix/virtual). > - Scalability. Comparing apples to apples, does postfix provide the > tools when it comes to hosting tens of thousands of virtual domains? yes. it scales extremely well. > - Reliability. Email is like dial tone these days, it's important to > know how postfix performs on this particular topic. wellexim's a nice little MTA for small leafnode sites - it's basically smail do
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 02:20:51PM +0900, ARAKI Yasuhiro wrote: > Folks, > > > > postfix is also faster than qmail. and more flexible. and with much > > > better anti-spam features. > > > > Could you elaborate on that? > > Postfix use piggyback mail transfer. > If two or more recipients are in the same domain, postfix/smtp use > ONLY ONE smtp connection for sending message.(like a sendmail, exim..) > BUT qmail use newly qmail-smtp each message. And, as I recall, postfix has less file accesses than qmail. (And a LOT less than sendmail.) I love postfix: it's been a pleasure to fiddle with (with a READABLE config) and is amazingly clear code with a wide range of versatility: one of my favorite things is that you can mix and match flat files with db files (usually a hash) with regex's with perl-compatble regexs... Want to have your aliases done "normally" as a hash? Sure.. but you can also add in a pcre file or two, and maybe even a flat file... other than the speed issues for each, postfix doesn't care what sort of 'map' you use. (You can even toss in an ldap or sql map if you want, but I haven't needed that.) The 'sendmail compatible' is overstated. It doesn't read sendmail.cf. It -does- act normally with things like .forward file, and the format of the alias file is the same and that sort of thing. It's actually much easier to get postfix to do Stupid MTA Tricks than it is to do the same with sendmail (did I mention I love pcre's? It's nice to refuse mail from all-numeric 'local parts' in email addresses)
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Haim Dimermanas wrote: > - Ease of configuration. I don't want to read a whole book to find out how I > can enable relay for a range of IP. The fact that it is sendmail compatible > scares me on that one. Postfix's configuration files and syntax are entirely different than sendmail. Postfix's configurations are very easy to use and understand. Postfix usage is also very different (other than common sendmail arguments and switches). Visit www.postfix.org and read one or two documentation pages. Jeremy C. Reed ... ISP-FAQ.com -- find answers to your questions http://www.isp-faq.com/
Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail
Folks, Subject: Re: sendmail is slow for mass mail Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:31:27 -0400 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > - Ease of configuration. I don't want to read a whole book to find out how I > can enable relay for a range of IP. The fact that it is sendmail compatible > scares me on that one. If you want to stop smtp relay for all other hosts, use # postconf -e "mynetworks_style = host" > - Scalability. Comparing apples to apples, does postfix provide the tools > when it comes to hosting tens of thousands of virtual domains? Postfix can receive huge domains. # postconf -e "mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.localdomain, \ hash:/etc/postfix/virtual" You list your virtual domains in /etc/postfix/virtual file. The function of the Virtual domains mainly provided by MDA. You can use any MDA which is starting by lmtp, pipe, INET, UNIX domain socket. > > postfix is also faster than qmail. and more flexible. and with much > > better anti-spam features. > > Could you elaborate on that? Postfix use piggyback mail transfer. If two or more recipients are in the same domain, postfix/smtp use ONLY ONE smtp connection for sending message.(like a sendmail, exim..) BUT qmail use newly qmail-smtp each message. --- ARAKI Yasuhiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to restrict remote user login in a per user basis ?
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 04:45:40PM -0400, Felipe Alvarez Harnecker wrote: > > > > > > Subject says it all. > > > > I'm using ssh and telnet-ssl for remote logins but i have some users > > that shoud do a local login. > > Maybe you could whip up a little shell script to check the tty the user > is logging in on (say wack it in /etc/profile) and then compare that > with a list of local / non-local tty's? If you're using a recent Debian-distibution you can use PAM and /etc/security/access.conf to restrict access to your system. That even gives you the possibility to allow ftp for all users and deny ssh or telnet only to some (that's what I use it for...) Greetings Peter -- Peter Lohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel.: 05207/920446 www.openstuff.de - Linux-Stofftiere, Linux-Mousepads, Linux-Tastaturen, Koffein Getränke - alles was den Linuxfan begeistert :-) --> We are but packets in the internet of life -- Mike (UF) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sendmail&smart host
Richard A Nelson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Martin Tanzer wrote:
>
> > I changed in /etc/mail/sendmail.mc:
> >
> > OSTYPE(mklinux)dnl
>
> while ( ! nauseated ) { print "Don't do this" };
hmmm. Why?
martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
