Re: [leaf-user] Re: LEAF on Notebook help
> > Christian, > > > > I can't reply to the list because I have only webmail at the moment, but > I'm "in charge" of the (uClibc) pcmcia packages. > > > > The addition of S,38 to the list of startup levels is somewhat redundant, > can you check if only "S,S20 0,K20 6,K20" in the RCDLINKS also works > correct? > > If it works I will take care of updating the various pcmcia packages. > > > > Regards, > > Eric Spakman > > member of the Bering-uClibc team > > > > > > Test done successfully. I've put the same RDCLINKS both in > /etc/init.d/pcmcia and /etc/init.d/pcmcia_eth > > Regards, > -- > Christian - Grenoble > Hello, In fact my test was incomplete :-(( During shutdown the scripts were called too early (K20) which generated errors and even a locked system. I have modified them so that "RDCLINKS=S,S20 0,K90 6,K90" and now it's OK. Regards, -- Christian - Grenoble --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] ANN: Bering-uClibc 2.1 released
The Bering-uClibc team releases Bering-uClibc 2.1. This is the final release moving LEAF Bering-uClibc to kernel version 2.4.24. Compared to latest release candidate ppp and shorewall has been upgraded to new upstream releases. As usual it also provides some minor changes and fixes. Notable is the consolidation and simplification of setting the editor - in short only e3 and the modes it provides (ws, nedit, vi, emacs) are available in this and upcoming versions. Setting the standard editor has been moved to /etc/profiles. For a complete changelog please read: http://leaf.sourceforge.net/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=91003&page_id=39 You'll find the image, ipv6 drop-in replacement, additional modules and a bootable ISO image with all available packages here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=13751&package_id=67534&release_id=216901 thanks for reading in behalf of the Bering-uClibc team kp --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] ISP and DNS issues
John, This may be a shot in the dark, but try turning off the firewall in Win XP when you're connecting through your LEAF router and see what happens. -- Thanks, Sak. - On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:46:17PM -0800, John Wittenberg wrote: > A few weeks back, our ISP decided that they were going to upgrade the mail > servers. On the day they were upgraded we could no longer access the mail > servers. My wife, who was and still may be extremely pissed, spent two > days with the Technicians who could not help. At the end of the second > day, my wife mentioned that we had a router and was told that was the > problem. That evening I removed the LEAF router and the mail connection > was _all well_ as the Windows XP box could connect to the mail server. > Thinking that the problem was with my setup of the LEAF box, I am using > Dachstein CD V1.0.2, I set up the box to use the default Dach settings. > This still did not allow connection to the mail server. At this time I was > beginning to believe that DNS could be that problem. About a year and a > half ago, the ISP changed the mail server name. Using XP's built in > _firewall_ I discovered the IP address for the mail server and using that > instead of a the FQN, I was able to get access to the mail server through > the LEAF box with the XP Box. > > So thinking that since the XP box could connect to the mail server without > the LEAF box using the FQN, I changed the LEAF box, at least I think I did, > to use my ISP's DNS instead of dnscache in the LEAF box. But alass this > _still did not_ work. I added my ISPs servers to DNS0 and DNS1 and set > CONFIG_DNS to YES. S, on a hunch I changed my mail Client to access > the original mail server name and it works! Original server name = > mail.cablespeed.com and the one that was working before the change = > mail.bllvwa.cablespeed.com. > > The real question becomes, why when using the mail server name when > connected direct from XP it works, where as having the LEAF box connected > using the mail server name does not work. Is there some difference when > using the ISP DNS versus going through the LEAF box with the ISP DNSs > identified. > > Thanks for any and all help in advance and sorry about the convoluted > message. > > John Wittenberg > > _ > Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > > --- > SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. > Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with > a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click > > leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user > SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] ISP and DNS issues
* John Wittenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:02:28:14:46:17-0800] scribed: > A few weeks back, our ISP decided that they were going to upgrade the mail > servers. On the day they were upgraded we could no longer access the mail > servers. My wife, who was and still may be extremely pissed, spent two > days with the Technicians who could not help. At the end of the second > day, my wife mentioned that we had a router and was told that was the > problem. That evening I removed the LEAF router and the mail connection > was _all well_ as the Windows XP box could connect to the mail server. > Thinking that the problem was with my setup of the LEAF box, I am using > Dachstein CD V1.0.2, I set up the box to use the default Dach settings. > This still did not allow connection to the mail server. At this time I was > beginning to believe that DNS could be that problem. About a year and a > half ago, the ISP changed the mail server name. Using XP's built in > _firewall_ I discovered the IP address for the mail server and using that > instead of a the FQN, I was able to get access to the mail server through > the LEAF box with the XP Box. > > So thinking that since the XP box could connect to the mail server without > the LEAF box using the FQN, I changed the LEAF box, at least I think I did, > to use my ISP's DNS instead of dnscache in the LEAF box. But alass this > _still did not_ work. I added my ISPs servers to DNS0 and DNS1 and set > CONFIG_DNS to YES. S, on a hunch I changed my mail Client to access > the original mail server name and it works! Original server name = > mail.cablespeed.com and the one that was working before the change = > mail.bllvwa.cablespeed.com. > > The real question becomes, why when using the mail server name when > connected direct from XP it works, where as having the LEAF box connected > using the mail server name does not work. Is there some difference when > using the ISP DNS versus going through the LEAF box with the ISP DNSs > identified. > > Thanks for any and all help in advance and sorry about the convoluted > message. Bottomline, your ISP's, cablespeed.com, DNS is b0rken ;> Furthermore, based on my cursory analysis, that DNS is being managed by people ignorant of DNS standards. I will use djbdns tools -- I am sure, with knowledgeable usage, other tools will demonstrate similar results. This is what the toplevel domain servers see regarding the domain cablespeed.com. This is what you can count on seeing from any arbitrary point on the Internet: # dnsqr any cablespeed.com 255 cablespeed.com: 68 bytes, 1+2+0+0 records, response, noerror query: 255 cablespeed.com answer: cablespeed.com 172416 NS ns1.cablespeed.com answer: cablespeed.com 172416 NS ns2.cablespeed.com Here is what `the Internet' thinks are your SMTP mail servers: # dnsqr mx cablespeed.com 15 cablespeed.com: 83 bytes, 1+2+0+0 records, response, noerror query: 15 cablespeed.com answer: cablespeed.com 2251 MX 10 mail2.evdloh.cablespeed.com answer: cablespeed.com 2251 MX 10 mail1.evdloh.cablespeed.com # dnsqr any mail1.evdloh.cablespeed.com 255 mail1.evdloh.cablespeed.com: 61 bytes, 1+1+0+0 records, response, noerror query: 255 mail1.evdloh.cablespeed.com answer: mail1.evdloh.cablespeed.com 71 A 216.15.205.76 # dnsqr any mail2.evdloh.cablespeed.com 255 mail2.evdloh.cablespeed.com: 61 bytes, 1+1+0+0 records, response, noerror query: 255 mail2.evdloh.cablespeed.com answer: mail2.evdloh.cablespeed.com 121 A 216.15.205.76 # dnsqr a mail.bllvwa.cablespeed.com 1 mail.bllvwa.cablespeed.com: timed out Notice that last one: the toplevel domain servers *CANNOT* find a path to an A record for the mail server you know works !?!? # dnsqr a mail.cablespeed.com 1 mail.cablespeed.com: 53 bytes, 1+1+0+0 records, response, noerror query: 1 mail.cablespeed.com answer: mail.cablespeed.com 252 A 216.15.205.76 Nor can `the Internet' establish any CNAME's for for these three (3) mail servers, that all happen to have A records pointing to the exact same IP address ;< # dnsqr cname mail.cablespeed.com 5 mail.cablespeed.com: timed out So, let us query cablespeed.com's nameservers directly: # dnsqr ns cablespeed.com 2 cablespeed.com: 68 bytes, 1+2+0+0 records, response, noerror query: 2 cablespeed.com answer: cablespeed.com 172607 NS ns1.cablespeed.com answer: cablespeed.com 172607 NS ns2.cablespeed.com # dnsip ns1.cablespeed.com 24.35.0.40 # dnsip ns2.cablespeed.com 24.35.0.35 There they are, according to `the Internet'; now, let us query that first one: # dnsq mx cablespeed.com ns1.cablespeed.com 15 cablespeed.com: timed out You see? One of your ISP's nameservers is b0rken ;< So, let's query the second nameserver: # dnsq mx cablespeed.com ns2.cablespeed.com 15 cablespeed.com: 148 bytes, 1+2+0+2 records, response, authoritative, no
