Re: AOL testing new anti-spam technology
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 13:07, Joey Hess wrote: One thing I've been wondering about is pseudo-forged @debian.org From addresses (like mine) and spf. It would seem we can never turn it on for toplevel debian.org without some large changes in how developers send their email. I don't understand how this problem will be solved for folks who travel. For example, many hotel access services redirect your SMTP TCP sessions to their local smart sender these days, as quite simply, that is the easiest way to prevent customers from being unable to send mail due to relay restrictions on their office or ISP mail server. -- Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AOL testing new anti-spam technology
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 09:54:41AM -0500, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: I don't understand how this problem will be solved for folks who travel. For example, many hotel access services redirect your SMTP TCP sessions to their local smart sender these days, as quite simply, that is the easiest way to prevent customers from being unable to send mail due to relay restrictions on their office or ISP mail server. From http://spf.pobox.com/forsysadmins.html: You should enable port 587 so your roaming users can inject messages even when their hotel is blocking port 25. We had this problem with users using wireless networks like T-Mobile hotspots, and worked around it with alternate ports. -- Nate If you put a billion monkeys in front of a billion typewriters typing at random, they would reproduce the entire collected works of Usenet in about ... five minutes. -Anon. Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare! -Blair Houghton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NO SUBJECT !!!
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 13:14, Craig Schneider wrote: falcon:/etc# apt-get remove courier-authdaemon Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: courier-authdaemon 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 4 not upgraded. 1 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 205kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Y dpkg: error processing courier-authdaemon (--remove): Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should reinstall it before attempting a removal. Errors were encountered while processing: courier-authdaemon E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) -- Any ideas guys ? C As it says , try to reinstall it and then remove (--purge) it. -- Arvind Autar [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
unsubscribe
-- - computers are like air-conditioners, they work better with windows closed - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
routing help
Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 203.221.41.11 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 00 eth0 203.220.47.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 0 00 eth0 203.221.41.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 00 eth0 0.0.0.0 203.220.47.153 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:05:1C:0B:48:A8 inet addr:203.221.41.11 Bcast:203.221.41.31 Mask:255.255.255.224 As can be seen from above the default route is set up to go to a gateway on a static route. What I want to do is add an ip alias to eth0 with an ip address of 203.221.41.12 and have it route out through the same gateway. If I simply do ifconfig eth0:1 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.3 I can ping the IP address from the machine that is on the same switch (e.g. from 203.221.41.1) but I can not ping or trace to the ip aliased interface. I have searched around on google but can't seem to find what I am doing wrong! Thanks, -- Lauchlin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: routing help
Sorry to be vague, but there was a command I remember once when I had this problem before. Seems like I had to do a route add in /network/interfaces. Seems like there is some parameter to an interface that allows you to execute a command after the interface is brought up, and I had to do a route add . . . . to get it to work. However, I'm doing a similar thing, on my server and the only difference is that my netmask is not 255.255.255.255, which I think is incorrect on yours. Maybe it is the fact that your netmask is not correct? Following are the first two entries in my /etc/network/interfaces, and it works just fine. If I read your output correctly, your netmask should be a .224 instead of the .0 I use (since you only have two IP's). auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 66.17.131.182 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 66.17.131.0 broadcast 66.17.131.255 gateway 66.17.131.1 auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address 66.17.131.183 netmask 255.255.255.0 Of course, I could be 100% wrong, in which case someone here will correct me. Rod Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 203.221.41.11 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 00 eth0 203.220.47.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 0 00 eth0 203.221.41.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 00 eth0 0.0.0.0 203.220.47.153 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:05:1C:0B:48:A8 inet addr:203.221.41.11 Bcast:203.221.41.31 Mask:255.255.255.224 As can be seen from above the default route is set up to go to a gateway on a static route. What I want to do is add an ip alias to eth0 with an ip address of 203.221.41.12 and have it route out through the same gateway. If I simply do ifconfig eth0:1 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.3 I can ping the IP address from the machine that is on the same switch (e.g. from 203.221.41.1) but I can not ping or trace to the ip aliased interface. I have searched around on google but can't seem to find what I am doing wrong! Thanks, -- Lauchlin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Media Ethics is an oxymoron, much like Jumbo Shrimp and Microsoft Works. Not to mention NT Security -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: routing help
Hi Rod, After a bit more playing and a bit more thinking I finally figured it out..I think What it looks like is that the router I am using as the gateway (203.220.47.153) needed to have its ARP table updated or flushed or something. I don't have control over it so I can't be sure. What I now have is a script that runs after boot time that looks like: /sbin/route add -net 203.220.47.152/30 eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 203.220.47.153 /bin/ping -c1 203.220.238.152 /sbin/ifconfig eth0 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/route add -net 203.220.47.152/30 eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 203.220.47.153 /bin/ping -c1 203.220.238.152 /sbin/ifconfig eth0 203.221.41.13 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/route add -net 203.220.47.152/30 eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 203.220.47.153 /bin/ping -c1 203.220.238.152 /sbin/ifconfig eth0 203.221.41.11 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/ifconfig eth0:0 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/ifconfig eth0:1 203.221.41.13 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/route add -net 203.220.47.152/30 eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 203.220.47.153 /bin/ping -c1 203.220.238.152 it basically cycles through the ip addresses pinging a host on just the other side of the router so it flushes the ARP cache. Does this sound correct or am I totally off the track here? Anyway it is all working now but I guess I'd like to know if what I had to do was correct or not? Cheers, Lauchlin On 26/01/2004, at 2:31 PM, Rod Rodolico wrote: Sorry to be vague, but there was a command I remember once when I had this problem before. Seems like I had to do a route add in /network/interfaces. Seems like there is some parameter to an interface that allows you to execute a command after the interface is brought up, and I had to do a route add . . . . to get it to work. However, I'm doing a similar thing, on my server and the only difference is that my netmask is not 255.255.255.255, mine is 255.255.255.224. The first line in the route output was a host entry that I don't seem to need after all. which I think is incorrect on yours. Maybe it is the fact that your netmask is not correct? Following are the first two entries in my /etc/network/interfaces, and it works just fine. If I read your output correctly, your netmask should be a .224 instead of the .0 I use (since you only have two IP's). auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 66.17.131.182 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 66.17.131.0 broadcast 66.17.131.255 gateway 66.17.131.1 auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address 66.17.131.183 netmask 255.255.255.0 auto eth0 eth1 iface eth0 inet static address 203.221.41.11 netmask 255.255.255.224 network 203.221.41.0 broadcast 203.221.41.31 is what I have. Of course, I could be 100% wrong, in which case someone here will correct me. Rod Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 203.221.41.11 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 eth0 203.220.47.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 0 0 0 eth0 203.221.41.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 203.220.47.153 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:05:1C:0B:48:A8 inet addr:203.221.41.11 Bcast:203.221.41.31 Mask:255.255.255.224 As can be seen from above the default route is set up to go to a gateway on a static route. What I want to do is add an ip alias to eth0 with an ip address of 203.221.41.12 and have it route out through the same gateway. If I simply do ifconfig eth0:1 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.3 I can ping the IP address from the machine that is on the same switch (e.g. from 203.221.41.1) but I can not ping or trace to the ip aliased interface. I have searched around on google but can't seem to find what I am doing wrong! Thanks, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: routing help
it basically cycles through the ip addresses pinging a host on just the other side of the router so it flushes the ARP cache. Does this sound correct or am I totally off the track here? Anyway it is all working now but I guess I'd like to know if what I had to do was correct or not? I believe there is a way to force a refresh or such of the ARP cache. Not sure how... but it can be done somehow. I'd be interested to learn the method under Linux as well, so if you find out, share it with the group :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AOL testing new anti-spam technology
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 13:07, Joey Hess wrote: One thing I've been wondering about is pseudo-forged @debian.org From addresses (like mine) and spf. It would seem we can never turn it on for toplevel debian.org without some large changes in how developers send their email. I don't understand how this problem will be solved for folks who travel. For example, many hotel access services redirect your SMTP TCP sessions to their local smart sender these days, as quite simply, that is the easiest way to prevent customers from being unable to send mail due to relay restrictions on their office or ISP mail server. -- Jeff
Re: AOL testing new anti-spam technology
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 09:54:41AM -0500, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: I don't understand how this problem will be solved for folks who travel. For example, many hotel access services redirect your SMTP TCP sessions to their local smart sender these days, as quite simply, that is the easiest way to prevent customers from being unable to send mail due to relay restrictions on their office or ISP mail server. From http://spf.pobox.com/forsysadmins.html: You should enable port 587 so your roaming users can inject messages even when their hotel is blocking port 25. We had this problem with users using wireless networks like T-Mobile hotspots, and worked around it with alternate ports. -- Nate If you put a billion monkeys in front of a billion typewriters typing at random, they would reproduce the entire collected works of Usenet in about ... five minutes. -Anon. Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare! -Blair Houghton
Re: NO SUBJECT !!!
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 13:14, Craig Schneider wrote: falcon:/etc# apt-get remove courier-authdaemon Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: courier-authdaemon 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 4 not upgraded. 1 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 205kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Y dpkg: error processing courier-authdaemon (--remove): Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should reinstall it before attempting a removal. Errors were encountered while processing: courier-authdaemon E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) -- Any ideas guys ? C As it says , try to reinstall it and then remove (--purge) it. -- Arvind Autar [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
unsubscribe
-- - computers are like air-conditioners, they work better with windows closed -
routing help
Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 203.221.41.11 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 00 eth0 203.220.47.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 0 00 eth0 203.221.41.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 00 eth0 0.0.0.0 203.220.47.153 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:05:1C:0B:48:A8 inet addr:203.221.41.11 Bcast:203.221.41.31 Mask:255.255.255.224 As can be seen from above the default route is set up to go to a gateway on a static route. What I want to do is add an ip alias to eth0 with an ip address of 203.221.41.12 and have it route out through the same gateway. If I simply do ifconfig eth0:1 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.3 I can ping the IP address from the machine that is on the same switch (e.g. from 203.221.41.1) but I can not ping or trace to the ip aliased interface. I have searched around on google but can't seem to find what I am doing wrong! Thanks, -- Lauchlin
Re: routing help
Sorry to be vague, but there was a command I remember once when I had this problem before. Seems like I had to do a route add in /network/interfaces. Seems like there is some parameter to an interface that allows you to execute a command after the interface is brought up, and I had to do a route add . . . . to get it to work. However, I'm doing a similar thing, on my server and the only difference is that my netmask is not 255.255.255.255, which I think is incorrect on yours. Maybe it is the fact that your netmask is not correct? Following are the first two entries in my /etc/network/interfaces, and it works just fine. If I read your output correctly, your netmask should be a .224 instead of the .0 I use (since you only have two IP's). auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 66.17.131.182 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 66.17.131.0 broadcast 66.17.131.255 gateway 66.17.131.1 auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address 66.17.131.183 netmask 255.255.255.0 Of course, I could be 100% wrong, in which case someone here will correct me. Rod Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 203.221.41.11 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 00 eth0 203.220.47.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 0 00 eth0 203.221.41.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 00 eth0 0.0.0.0 203.220.47.153 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:05:1C:0B:48:A8 inet addr:203.221.41.11 Bcast:203.221.41.31 Mask:255.255.255.224 As can be seen from above the default route is set up to go to a gateway on a static route. What I want to do is add an ip alias to eth0 with an ip address of 203.221.41.12 and have it route out through the same gateway. If I simply do ifconfig eth0:1 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.3 I can ping the IP address from the machine that is on the same switch (e.g. from 203.221.41.1) but I can not ping or trace to the ip aliased interface. I have searched around on google but can't seem to find what I am doing wrong! Thanks, -- Lauchlin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Media Ethics is an oxymoron, much like Jumbo Shrimp and Microsoft Works. Not to mention NT Security
Re: routing help
Hi Rod, After a bit more playing and a bit more thinking I finally figured it out..I think What it looks like is that the router I am using as the gateway (203.220.47.153) needed to have its ARP table updated or flushed or something. I don't have control over it so I can't be sure. What I now have is a script that runs after boot time that looks like: /sbin/route add -net 203.220.47.152/30 eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 203.220.47.153 /bin/ping -c1 203.220.238.152 /sbin/ifconfig eth0 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/route add -net 203.220.47.152/30 eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 203.220.47.153 /bin/ping -c1 203.220.238.152 /sbin/ifconfig eth0 203.221.41.13 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/route add -net 203.220.47.152/30 eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 203.220.47.153 /bin/ping -c1 203.220.238.152 /sbin/ifconfig eth0 203.221.41.11 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/ifconfig eth0:0 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/ifconfig eth0:1 203.221.41.13 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.31 /sbin/route add -net 203.220.47.152/30 eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 203.220.47.153 /bin/ping -c1 203.220.238.152 it basically cycles through the ip addresses pinging a host on just the other side of the router so it flushes the ARP cache. Does this sound correct or am I totally off the track here? Anyway it is all working now but I guess I'd like to know if what I had to do was correct or not? Cheers, Lauchlin On 26/01/2004, at 2:31 PM, Rod Rodolico wrote: Sorry to be vague, but there was a command I remember once when I had this problem before. Seems like I had to do a route add in /network/interfaces. Seems like there is some parameter to an interface that allows you to execute a command after the interface is brought up, and I had to do a route add . . . . to get it to work. However, I'm doing a similar thing, on my server and the only difference is that my netmask is not 255.255.255.255, mine is 255.255.255.224. The first line in the route output was a host entry that I don't seem to need after all. which I think is incorrect on yours. Maybe it is the fact that your netmask is not correct? Following are the first two entries in my /etc/network/interfaces, and it works just fine. If I read your output correctly, your netmask should be a .224 instead of the .0 I use (since you only have two IP's). auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 66.17.131.182 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 66.17.131.0 broadcast 66.17.131.255 gateway 66.17.131.1 auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address 66.17.131.183 netmask 255.255.255.0 auto eth0 eth1 iface eth0 inet static address 203.221.41.11 netmask 255.255.255.224 network 203.221.41.0 broadcast 203.221.41.31 is what I have. Of course, I could be 100% wrong, in which case someone here will correct me. Rod Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 203.221.41.11 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 eth0 203.220.47.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 0 0 0 eth0 203.221.41.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 203.220.47.153 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:05:1C:0B:48:A8 inet addr:203.221.41.11 Bcast:203.221.41.31 Mask:255.255.255.224 As can be seen from above the default route is set up to go to a gateway on a static route. What I want to do is add an ip alias to eth0 with an ip address of 203.221.41.12 and have it route out through the same gateway. If I simply do ifconfig eth0:1 203.221.41.12 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 203.221.41.3 I can ping the IP address from the machine that is on the same switch (e.g. from 203.221.41.1) but I can not ping or trace to the ip aliased interface. I have searched around on google but can't seem to find what I am doing wrong! Thanks,
Re: routing help
it basically cycles through the ip addresses pinging a host on just the other side of the router so it flushes the ARP cache. Does this sound correct or am I totally off the track here? Anyway it is all working now but I guess I'd like to know if what I had to do was correct or not? I believe there is a way to force a refresh or such of the ARP cache. Not sure how... but it can be done somehow. I'd be interested to learn the method under Linux as well, so if you find out, share it with the group :-)
