Re: test
Don't send test messages to this list. If you want to see if your post will make it to the list, just post it and see if you get a copy back. Test messages are a waste of time and money. Especially money since many people on this list are on metered acces and have to pay extra to download each byte. Your test just cost them money. For more information, see the RedHat Install List Guide at : http://www.rps2.net/RHLinux/rhil-guide.htm OR: http://kinz.org/rhilg.html for information on how to use the RedHat list On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:03:41AM -0500, Periyasamy, Raj wrote: Test message to list Regards, -- Jeff Kinz, Open-PC, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. [EMAIL PROTECTED] copyright 2003. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.kinz.org/policy.html. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test empty dir
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:52:56AM -, Zhi Cheng Wang wrote: dear gurus how can i test if a directory is empty? at the moment i use the following method: ls -l /dirname | grep total 0 if [ $? ] then This is not a good test. ls -l will not reveal dot-files. Use ls -A which will list all files, including the dotted ones, but excluding '.' and '..'. if [ -z `ls -A /dirname` ]; then echo empty; fi but I think it is ugly, any pretty way? ... -- Anand Buddhdev http://anand.org -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: test empty dir
this seems a very good test, but the system says [: too may arguments
-Original Message-
From: Anand Buddhdev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 March 2003 09:55
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: test empty dir
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:52:56AM -, Zhi Cheng Wang wrote:
dear gurus
how can i test if a directory is empty? at the moment i use the following method:
ls -l /dirname | grep total 0
if [ $? ] then
This is not a good test. ls -l will not reveal dot-files.
Use ls -A which will list all files, including the dotted ones, but
excluding '.' and '..'.
if [ -z `ls -A /dirname` ]; then echo empty; fi
but I think it is ugly, any pretty way? ...
--
Anand Buddhdev
http://anand.org
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the person(s) ('the
intended recipient') to whom it was addressed. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Paterson
Institute for Cancer Research or the Christie Hospital NHS Trust. It may contain
information that is privileged confidential within the meaning of applicable law.
Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message, or
any of its contents, by any person other than the intended recipient may constitute a
breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are NOT the
intended recipient please contact the sender and dispose of this e-mail as soon as
possible.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test empty dir
He just missed some double quotes. if [ -z "$(ls -A dirname)" ]; then echo empty; fi I prefer the $(shell command) syntax rather than the `shell command`. I find it easier to read. I believe (someone tell me if I'm wrong) that it is now part of the POSIX shell standard. Of course some shells still don't support it so you might have to write: if [ -z "`ls -A dirname`" ]; then echo empty; fi Mike Zhi Cheng Wang wrote: this seems a very good test, but the system says "[: too may arguments" -Original Message- From: Anand Buddhdev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 March 2003 09:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: test empty dir On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:52:56AM -, Zhi Cheng Wang wrote: dear gurus how can i test if a directory is empty? at the moment i use the following method: ls -l /dirname | grep "total 0" if [ $? ] then This is not a good test. "ls -l" will not reveal dot-files. Use "ls -A" which will list all files, including the dotted ones, but excluding '.' and '..'. if [ -z `ls -A /dirname` ]; then echo "empty"; fi but I think it is ugly, any pretty way? ...
Re: test empty dir
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Mike Reed wrote: He just missed some double quotes. if [ -z $(ls -A dirname) ]; then echo empty; fi I prefer the $(shell command) syntax rather than the `shell command`. I find it easier to read. I believe (someone tell me if I'm wrong) that it is now part of the POSIX shell standard. yes, $(command) is part of the POSIX standard. it's more aesthetically appealing as well, and certainly makes nesting of command substitution easier. rday -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test empty dir
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Mike Reed wrote: He just missed some double quotes. if [ -z $(ls -A dirname) ]; then echo empty; fi I prefer the $(shell command) syntax rather than the `shell command`. I find it easier to read. I believe (someone tell me if I'm wrong) that it is now part of the POSIX shell standard. Of course some shells still don't support it so you might have to write: if [ -z `ls -A dirname` ]; then echo empty; fi Mike just being pedantic, but would symbolic links in the directory count as content? rday -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test empty dir
On 11:12 07 Mar 2003, Zhi Cheng Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: |From: Anand Buddhdev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:52:56AM -, Zhi Cheng Wang wrote: | how can i test if a directory is empty? at the moment i use the following method: | | ls -l /dirname | grep total 0 | if [ $? ] then | | This is not a good test. ls -l will not reveal dot-files. | | Use ls -A which will list all files, including the dotted ones, but | excluding '.' and '..'. | | if [ -z `ls -A /dirname` ]; then echo empty; fi | | this seems a very good test, but the system says [: too may arguments Yeah, Anand didn't quote it. Try this: if [ -z `ls -A /dirname` ]; then .. You have to make the output of ls stick together as one string so that the -z has exactly one argument. I case actually think of a pathological case where it won't work, too, because backticks strip some whitespace, so if you have a file in the whole name is pure whitespace... Perhaps we should ask: why do you want to know if it's empty? There may be a cleaner approach. In particular, I would point out that rmdir WILL NOT remove a nonempty directory, so you can go: rmdir /dirname 2/dev/null with impunity, IF all you want to do is clean up an empty directory without risk of losing files if it's not empty. More background on your larger task please? -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ George, discussing a patent and prior art: Look, this publication has a date, the patent has a priority date, can't you just compare them? Paul Sutcliffe: Not unless you're a lawyer. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test empty dir
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:12:07AM -, Zhi Cheng Wang wrote: this seems a very good test, but the system says [: too may arguments Ouch. Sorry, I forgot the quotes. Thanks to everyone who spotted this and responded while I was on the bus :) how can i test if a directory is empty? at the moment i use the following method: ls -l /dirname | grep total 0 if [ $? ] then This is not a good test. ls -l will not reveal dot-files. Use ls -A which will list all files, including the dotted ones, but excluding '.' and '..'. if [ -z `ls -A /dirname` ]; then echo empty; fi -- Anand Buddhdev http://anand.org -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Test install failed because ....
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 at 10:33pm (-0600), Nezar Freeny wrote: Hi All: I ran the up2date -u and it did update all of the packages except to kernel-smp-2.4.18-24.7.x. It gives me this message: Test install failed because of package conflicts: installing package kernel-smp-2.4.18-24.7.x needs 2Mb on the / filesystem I searched google, redhat, etc. without any success. Any help is greatly appreciated and thanks in advance. Not wanting to rule out the obvious..do you actually have 2Mb of free space on the root filesystem? df -h / ... ought to tell you. M. -- WebCentral Pty Ltd Australia's #1 Internet Web Hosting Company Level 5, 100 Wickham St. Network Operations - Systems Engineer PO Box 930, Fortitude Valley. phone: +61 7 3249 2552 Queensland, Australia 4006. pgp key id: 0x900E515F -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test
Michel Donais wrote: test; please do not answer Ok. (sorry, couldn't resist) -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: Test
Title: RE: Test -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 No, it's just r slow... (Posts are taking up to 3 days to appear) - -Original Message- From: Thomas E. Dukes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 7:54 AM To: Redhat-List@Redhat. Com Subject: Test I think the list may be down!? Palmetto Shopper http://www.palmettoshopper.com Serving all of South Carolina and beyond! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPiwy29PjBkUEZx5AEQIidACgrT2vjsi3axzV9usPGFDfmOIEkH8AoPdC HzoqhBiT2SbkqDGpioY45oCI =gLTO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Test
Burke, Thomas G. wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 No, it's just r slow... (Posts are taking up to 3 days to appear) The little guy in the back room is typing as fast as he can! Ric -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: test - can anyone hear me?
This one worked. :) Stuart -Original Message- From: Michael Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test - can anyone hear me? Sorry everyone. I wrote an email detailing my problem and it doesn't seem to have gotten on the board. I want to make sure they're going through before I spend time writing another one. Mike _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test - can anyone hear me?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:24:03 -0600, Michael Turner wrote: Sorry everyone. I wrote an email detailing my problem and it doesn't seem to have gotten on the board. I want to make sure they're going through before I spend time writing another one. Copy the message from your Sent folder and resend it instead of a test message. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE996Zg0iMVcrivHFQRAtPhAJ0WA6B66/9hruRuyr0cEkBfbAuvtgCfdCRb tyIBmxNGMrmDtglWuL2drB0= =CLzB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test - can anyone hear me?
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:24, Michael Turner wrote: Sorry everyone. I wrote an email detailing my problem and it doesn't seem to have gotten on the board. I want to make sure they're going through before I spend time writing another one. Nope, I can't hear a damn thing over the fans of the Dell server that I have on my desk right now :) Kent -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Test mail from evolution
On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 21:00, Linux Admin wrote: Test mail -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Test posting
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:43:52PM -0500, Periyasamy, Raj wrote: Hello Linux list hello and good bye testing annoyance filter update: :0 * ^Subject: +(Re: )?test( message| post(ing)?)?$ /dev/null -- Hal Burgiss -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test only (Out of Office)
I will be out of the office Friday, November 15th. If this is an emergency please contact the IT help desk. Thank you, Jacob Petrie Web Systems/Information Technology Kitsap Community Federal Credit Union [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.662.2140 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request;redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 03:53:12 -0800 (PST), Gautam P wrote: __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 It is a bad habit to post empty test messages to a public mailing-list where many people are subscribed and see your tests. Instead, use your first real reply or a new message with relevant content as the test mail. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9z7vL0iMVcrivHFQRAsG0AJ0Rmtm0LOvVgpE+W5KrM8ltTegl3ACfVueR zsCSPrV6ZQsUf4d1b3ipHPs= =tv2q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request;redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Test user password against a known value
On 05:17 28 Feb 2002, Peter Kiem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I need to write a script (preferably bash, perl if necessary) that can test a | specified user's password against a test password to see if they have changed | it or not. | It should be as simple as running an MD5 over the test password and comparing | to the MD5 password stored for them to make sure it matches, right? | Does anyone have any scripts for doing this on a Red Hat 7.1 system? This script: http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/scripts/pwcrypt does it for old style crypt() passwords. There should be equivalent code for the MD5 stuff. The only thing you've missed is that most of these things use a salt, kept with the hash, to make sure that if two people have the same password, their hashes _aren't_ the same. Anyway, your basic idea is correct: hash the passwords and compare. -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ As a computer journalist, he's a good travel writer. - Ian Yates [EMAIL PROTECTED] about Gareth Powell ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Test user password against a known value
Hi Cameron,
does it for old style crypt() passwords. There should be equivalent code
for the MD5 stuff. The only thing you've missed is that most of these
things use a salt, kept with the hash, to make sure that if two people
have the same password, their hashes _aren't_ the same.
I've been trying out this script I found on the net (with a couple of lines I
added for debug). It is supposed to list all users found with a password
that matches the first parameter.
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
#test a plain text password. If no login is provided, returns
#the logins of users with that password, and false if no match?
#If a login is provided, returns true if the password
#is the password of that login, false and a warning if user not existing
#or the password is x, and a warning if the account is disabled.
use lib /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.0;
use Crypt::PasswdMD5;
unless (@ARGV){print STDERR usage:$0 [passwd] [login]\n; die}
my $passwd=shift;
my $login=;
if (@ARGV){
$login=shift @ARGV;
}
my @result=();
my @ passwdEntry = ();
my ($user,$pwd);
while (($user, $pwd) = getpwent){
$enc = Crypt::PasswdMD5::unix_md5_crypt($passwd,$pwd);
print $user, $pwd, $enc\n;
if ($login and ($login eq $user)){
if ($pwd eq 'x'){
print STDERR you have no access to the password\n;
exit 1;
}
if ($pwd =~ s/^\!//){
print STDERR warning: account locked\n;
}
exit (! (Crypt::PasswdMD5::unix_md5_crypt($passwd,$pwd) eq
$pwd)) ;
}
elsif ((! $login) and (Crypt::PasswdMD5::unix_md5_crypt($passwd,$pwd)
eq $pwd))
{
print success\n;
push @result, $user;
}
}
if ($login){print STDERR No such login name: $login\n;}
if (@result){print @result\n;}
exit ! (@result);
and I am getting output like:
user1, z3Lu.fGQIIKz2, $1$z3Lu.fGQ$yrlYizBt7HUDqmJq5dXNC1
user2, 0pF2M.FIukAWo, $1$0pF2M.FI$XYSqmC0jTzXoUY5dtHpz5/
user3, OMyao/at64nVk, $1$OMyao/at$WIQwz4g28Qs5GbakAps1s/
The result returned from Crypt::PasswdMD5::unix_md5_crypt is much longer than
the $pwd variable returned by getpwent. The 8 chars between the 2nd and 3rd
$ are ALWAYS equal to the $pwd variable.
Any ideas how to proceed from here?
--
Regards,
+---+-+
| Peter Kiem| E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Zordah IT | Mobile: +61 0414 724 766|
| IT Consultancy | WWW : www.zordah.net |
| Internet Hosting| ICQ : Zordah 81 |
+---+-+
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test
Do you realize how lame it is to send a test message out to how many thousand of users? Do you realize what a waste of resources that is? At 07:47 AM 2/20/2002 -0500, you wrote: test ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: test
and your response is any better because...? -Original Message- From: Clifford Thurber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: test Do you realize how lame it is to send a test message out to how many thousand of users? Do you realize what a waste of resources that is? At 07:47 AM 2/20/2002 -0500, you wrote: test ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test (sorry)
Hi Martin: I got your test mail for PGP. I would like to know some detail in PGP and S/MIME. How they work? Which one is more secure? Vimol ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test (sorry)
I would. I recently setup gpg on my machine and am in the process of testing and learing everything I can. I am especially interested in any compatability issues with other platforms' mailers. Bret On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 09:03, Vimol wrote: Hi Martin: I got your test mail for PGP. I would like to know some detail in PGP and S/MIME. How they work? Which one is more secure? Vimol ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test (sorry)
--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:54:23AM -0600, Bret Hughes wrote: I would. I recently setup gpg on my machine and am in the process of testing and learing everything I can. I am especially interested in any compatability issues with other platforms' mailers. =20 Bret =20 On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 09:03, Vimol wrote: Hi Martin: =20 I got your test mail for PGP. I would like to know some detail in PGP and S/MIME. How they work? Which one is more secure? =20 Vimol I performed the test to get information on email rejection that I had been getting from someone on the list. This person has set his mail program, or= is set by his email provider, to reject all mail that has an attachment. The result of this is, this person does receive any mail that has been sign= ed by gpg/pgp, as those signatures are sent as attachments. I suppose this is a good default setting for an email provider to have, or = to set if your mail is going to be read on a Windows machine at some point. Since I'm going to sign this message, and am about to tell 'mutt' to sign a= ll my messages by default, I'll get his email address from the rejection of th= is mail and send him a non-signed message informing him on what he is missing with his 'rejection' setting. Vimol, pgp/gpg/openpgp is the only way to fly. As for information, there's plenty= on the net. - Martin J. Brown, Jr. - = =20 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - = =20 = =20 Public PGP Key ID: 0xB29EDDCADB184F7B keyserver: http://certserver.pgp.co= m/ --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8P1CIsp7dytsYT3sRAilpAJ0TDDf+rK2/1KV+f6OBEx5sY7Y/UACgjNA/ Mc/x/cfxCtvSAvVadBG+fys= =qOpJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4-- ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test. does this make it?
I got it At 12:29 AM 12/4/00 -0500, you wrote: subject sez it all. --Matt ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list Fred Edmister President / Networking Specialist Northside Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.northsidenetworking.com 716-387-9121 ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test. does this make it?
yeZ it does make it. - Original Message - From: "Matthew Galgoci" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:29 AM Subject: test. does this make it? subject sez it all. --Matt ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test cycle for bind 9?
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 07:40:36AM -0700, Kirk wrote:
: Yes, definately interested. Let me know how it goes on the 6.2 side. I
: would also be interested to see that spec file or a .src.rpm . I've read
: some interesting things about bind 9 and would like to try it.
Ok, it's built, but be warned now.. bind 9.0.0 enforces standards
*STRICTLY*. For example, you now MUST declare the $TTL variable as the
first line in your zone files. 8.2.2P5 did this for you based on the TTL
you had in the zone config.. So, start adding those to the head of your
zone files now...
format:
$TTL 86400
@ IN SOAetc.
I'll post the SRPM on my site today.
--
Jason Costomiris| Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test cycle for bind 9?
Yes, definately interested. Let me know how it goes on the 6.2 side. I would also be interested to see that spec file or a .src.rpm . I've read some interesting things about bind 9 and would like to try it. Kirk On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Jason Costomiris wrote: I noticed the bind 9.0.0 is now in Rawhide. I'm building it on my Guinness system right now. What I find particularly attractive about this release is that it's a ground-up rewrite, rather than the hack-n-patch job that 8.x was, even Vixie admits this.. Thoughts about a turn-around/test-cycle for inclusion in the errata for Guinness? Tomorrow, I'll be porting the spec file for use on my 6.2 servers. I'll post the results when done, if there's interest. -- Kirk Whiting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test
Some of the mail going through this list has been getting backed up. On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Eddie Strohmier wrote: Is the list up or down??? Receiving no mail from list. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- -Statux ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: test
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, wong wrote: can i install gnome on server class linux ? I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're asking if it is possible to select server class install during the installation process but adding Gnome to it then there is a good chance that you cannot do it, I suppose. My guess is that those categories are locked in, and if you need to install something else you are better off by choosing the custom category. However, if you are asking if it is possible to install Gnome _after_ the installation is complete the answer is that it is perfectly possible. You can just install the RPM files from the CD-ROM itself, or even go to the HelixGnome site (http://www.helixcode.com) and download it from there (their version is _really_ easy to install). Either way, I wouldn't recommend running Gnome on a server. Why have an application hogging your resources when you should be using them all for serving purposes? I'd rather run the server in console mode or if anything run a simple lightweight window manager such as fvwm. -- Nitebirdz http://www.linuxnovice.org Tips, articles, news, links... ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: TEST- Is the list down again?
I share your frustration. I am seeing the same thing. What is going on? I see my post 3 days after I post them. Some members on the list seem to be having a conversation but I'll be damn if I can join in. If I do I would see my post 3 days later. Does not make sense. Eddie Strohmier Bonwell Globalnet www.bonwell.com -Original Message- From: John Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, May 18, 2030 2:24 AM Subject: Re: TEST- Is the list down again? Seems like it. last couple of days I've been getting only a few sporadic messages compared to the usual one to two hundred. This is getting old. Jhnny From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TEST- Is the list down again? Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Is the list down again? -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: TEST- Is the list down again?
Seems like it. last couple of days I've been getting only a few sporadic messages compared to the usual one to two hundred. This is getting old. Jhnny From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TEST- Is the list down again? Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Is the list down again? -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: TEST- Is the list down again?
On 10-May-00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] opined: Is the list down again? Sent 10 May, received 12 May. I'd say we're back to the same problem of a week or 2 ago. Sure hope there weren't any "gotta have an answer right now" queries. --- It's not a bug, it's tradition! -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test
Activity is *low*. First I thought that they had been broken in to. Maybe they didn't apply the lates (p3) patch to the bind package. :-) But then I noticed that one of my messages took more then twelve hours(!) to reach the list. May also be that some people have left the list following the last, let's say 'involved', discussion about the installation routines. Regards Gustav Hidong Kim wrote: Hi, I posted two messages to this list today. I haven't seen either. In fact, I've hardly gotten any messages from this list today. Has it been suddenly deactivated? Thanks, Hidong -- pgp = Pretty Good Privacy. To get my public pgp key, send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at http://www.schaffter.com -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 05:53:28PM -0800, Hidong Kim wrote: I posted two messages to this list today. I haven't seen either. In fact, I've hardly gotten any messages from this list today. Has it been suddenly deactivated? Thanks, Same here, for the past 24h. What's up? Thomas -- "Look, Ma, no obsolete quotes and plain text only!" Thomas Ribbrock | http://www.bigfoot.com/~kaytan | ICQ#: 15839919 "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!" -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test
there does seem to be quite a bit less traffic than normal, but I've gotten about 30 posts. Hidong Kim wrote: Hi, I posted two messages to this list today. I haven't seen either. In fact, I've hardly gotten any messages from this list today. Has it been suddenly deactivated? Thanks, Hidong -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: Test post
You wrote: /snip/ "Incidentally, I have yet to subscribe to a list that shows this behavior. May I ask which one(s) does?" (Referring to lists that block accounts.) The [EMAIL PROTECTED] has really shafted me! I can read their posts, but I cannot communicate with them, or the list-leader Axalon Bloodstone. The story is as follows: I could post to the list from Mandrake 5.3, thru my ISDN modem and my ISP. Maybe I still could, if, a) Mandrake 6.1 ppp worked on my system, and b) my ISDN line was working, since I have no other external modem. (The phoneco has been fooling with the connection for a couple weeks now with no results as yet.) Since I need help with the ppp connection, and I cannot contact Mandrake, I am absolutely screwed! And I guess I will be forever. Maybe I can find a snail-mail address and write them a letter! --doug -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
I'm no mail expert so can't take this very far without doing some research. BUT, how do these list operators know your mail server is on a dial-up account? My Linux server routes mail directly to the destination. The mail server at my ISP doesn't add its own headers. Do you have your Linux box set to relay and are you using it as the outgoing mail server for your users (rather than setting the users to send through your ISP's MTA)? Incidentally, I have yet to subscribe to a list that shows this behavior. May I ask which one(s) does? -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 6:38 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post :) Larry, big grin. The problem isn't with my ISP. They have no objection to me running this configuration. The problem is with select members of the Linux community (hard to believe, isn't it?). Linux as the operating system is GREAT! I've never been more pleased, as I now have a virtual domain, 4 cnames, several users, and several personal email accounts that I can run off this one box (the one I'm typing into now). I LOVE IT. The problem is that several Linux list owners have decided that dial-up Linux accounts such as you and I run are the perfect attraction for current and future spammers, so they've subscribed to a spam blocking service that blocks any incoming email from dial-up Linux users that are using their Linux box as their MTA. If anything this proves that Bill Gates is still winning, as he's tricked the Linux community into turning on itself and into killing the very operating system features that brought most of us from Windows to Linux. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Larry Kelley wrote: Uh, I haven't read this entire thread, but... I run sendmail on a Linux server on a dial-up ISP account and have 20 users on it, all of whom can send mail as themselves from their Win or Mac desktops. Maybe you need a better ISP? Larry -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:25 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post Charles, Don't play games. I run a virtual domain and 4 cnames off my linux dial-up box, plus I administer several other domains I own that are on other servers from here, and have several users on this box. I've been told I HAVE to use envelope masquerading and if I don't to get lost. Envelope masquerading forces every outgoing letter to read as from my dial-up account address. This makes my Linux box absolutely worthless, as I then can't run a single domain from here for my business, nor can I administer the domains I run off the other servers. If I forward mail to my ISP and use it as the MTA instead (a windows configuration) no mail from here goes out as my ISP rejects mail from my users with a "we don't relay" message. Again all mail sent out HAS to read as from my dial-up account, making Linux on this box worthless. Let's face reality, if you want to use Linux, you better be prepared to spend $500 a month for a leased line (as I was recently quoted) so mailhelp, vger.rutgers.edu, and mail-abuse.org consider you to be a part of the financially elect so you're allowed to use Linux as a Linux box, not a Windows clone. I say again, with the configuration mailhelp and mail-abuse.org/dul are forcing us to use, Linux is absolutely worthless. Under that configuration Windows is more user friendly. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote: Glen You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already) charles On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Glen Lee Edwards wrote: Mike, Yep. That would work better. The system you just mentioned blocks the IP addresses of KNOWN spammers. The system [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vger.rutgers.edu use block Linux boxes with dial-up accounts who are using their box as their MTA. I find it odd that mailhelp exists to explain to us how to use Linux as our own MTA, but when we do so they block us from using their site. The configuration they've told me I HAVE to use to access their list requires me to use my ISP as my MTA. They might as well tell me to bury Linux and use Windows - same end configuration. I'm truly sorry I use Linux on my home PC. And I'm sorry that I'm Internet trash for doing so. Glen I'm truly very happy I use Linux anywhere I can. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
I'm afraid most of us really cannot help you because we really don't understand what the issue is. On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:53:41AM -0800, Larry Kelley wrote: Maybe you need a better ISP? Larry Sounds like he does. -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:25 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post Charles, Don't play games. I run a virtual domain and 4 cnames off my linux dial-up box, plus I administer several other domains I own that are on other servers from here, and have several users on this box. I've been told I HAVE to use envelope masquerading and if I don't to get lost. Envelope masquerading forces every outgoing letter to read as from my dial-up account address. If you have control over the virtual domains, why is your ISP even involved here? Sounds like they just don't want your business. It's no big secret that most of them don't like people hosting their own domains. Particularly behind dial-up. For one, Send mail on your box should be deliviering the mail directly to the remote mail hosts, not through your ISP. Are you instead refering to your domain participants being able to send mail on their own machines branded with their virtual domain address? If so, you use either sendmail or qmail on your box with some very selective relaying to let just your customers use you as an SMTP gateway. Again, your box will then directly send the mail to the receiving gateway and your ISP isn't even involved. That's why none of us really understands the nature of your problem. This makes my Linux box absolutely worthless, as I then can't run a single domain from here for my business, nor can I administer the domains I run off the other servers.i What does any of this have to do with administering domains on the other servers? If I forward mail to my ISP and use it as the MTA instead (a windows configuration) no mail from here goes out as my ISP rejects mail from my users with a "we don't relay" message. I have good and bad to say about this. The ISP is obviously making an atempt at controlling spam. (Good) However, you are on a dial-up and it is refusing to relay mail from your box. (Bad) It's the ISPs job to relay mail on behalf of their dialup customers, regardless of the the message envelope. They can authenticate the user requesting transport as one of their customers because they can fingerprint the IP address as one of their dialup lines. (Even if it's really one of your customers sending mail from your box, it will finger print as you by the IP address and thus should be allowed.) This just sounds of an ISP that really does not want to do business with you. Again all mail sent out HAS to read as from my dial-up account, making Linux on this box worthless. As it would any other OS. SCO, Solaris, Windows NT, etc... There are limitations to the SMTP protocol that become major issues under the wrong set of circumstances. Let's face reality, if you want to use Linux, you better be prepared to spend $500 a month for a leased line (as I was recently quoted) so mailhelp, vger.rutgers.edu, and mail-abuse.org consider you to be a part of the financially elect so you're allowed to use Linux as a Linux box, not a Windows clone. I say again, with the configuration mailhelp and mail-abuse.org/dul are forcing us to use, Linux is absolutely worthless. Under that configuration Windows is more user friendly. Again, I don't understand what you mean. What functionality is Windows providing that linux is not? If you tried to configure mail on an NT server the way you're describing, you will have exactly the same problem because it appears you're using the technology wrong. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote: Glen You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already) charles Listen to Charles here, I think he's trying to say the same thing I am. -- J. Scott Kasten jsk AT tetracon-eng DOT net "That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!" -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Bill who?!? ;) Glen Lee Edwards wrote: :) If anything this proves that Bill Gates is still winning, as he's tricked the Linux community into turning on itself and into killing the very operating system features that brought most of us from Windows to Linux. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Larry Kelley wrote: Uh, I haven't read this entire thread, but... I run sendmail on a Linux server on a dial-up ISP account and have 20 users on it, all of whom can send mail as themselves from their Win or Mac desktops. Maybe you need a better ISP? Larry -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:25 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post Charles, Don't play games. I run a virtual domain and 4 cnames off my linux dial-up box, plus I administer several other domains I own that are on other servers from here, and have several users on this box. I've been told I HAVE to use envelope masquerading and if I don't to get lost. Envelope masquerading forces every outgoing letter to read as from my dial-up account address. This makes my Linux box absolutely worthless, as I then can't run a single domain from here for my business, nor can I administer the domains I run off the other servers. If I forward mail to my ISP and use it as the MTA instead (a windows configuration) no mail from here goes out as my ISP rejects mail from my users with a "we don't relay" message. Again all mail sent out HAS to read as from my dial-up account, making Linux on this box worthless. Let's face reality, if you want to use Linux, you better be prepared to spend $500 a month for a leased line (as I was recently quoted) so mailhelp, vger.rutgers.edu, and mail-abuse.org consider you to be a part of the financially elect so you're allowed to use Linux as a Linux box, not a Windows clone. I say again, with the configuration mailhelp and mail-abuse.org/dul are forcing us to use, Linux is absolutely worthless. Under that configuration Windows is more user friendly. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote: Glen You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already) charles On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Glen Lee Edwards wrote: Mike, Yep. That would work better. The system you just mentioned blocks the IP addresses of KNOWN spammers. The system [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vger.rutgers.edu use block Linux boxes with dial-up accounts who are using their box as their MTA. I find it odd that mailhelp exists to explain to us how to use Linux as our own MTA, but when we do so they block us from using their site. The configuration they've told me I HAVE to use to access their list requires me to use my ISP as my MTA. They might as well tell me to bury Linux and use Windows - same end configuration. I'm truly sorry I use Linux on my home PC. And I'm sorry that I'm Internet trash for doing so. Glen I'm truly very happy I use Linux anywhere I can. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 01:11:18PM -0800, Larry Kelley wrote: I'm no mail expert so can't take this very far without doing some research. BUT, how do these list operators know your mail server is on a dial-up account? My Linux server routes mail directly to the destination. The mail server at my ISP doesn't add its own headers. Do you have your Linux box set to relay and are you using it as the outgoing mail server for your users (rather than setting the users to send through your ISP's MTA)? Sounds like he is sending mail directly from his box, and the list servers are not able to fully resolve the RETURN-PATH. This is raising a flag that the mail *may* not be legit -- IOW possible spam artist as far as their filters are concerned. Incidentally, I have yet to subscribe to a list that shows this behavior. May I ask which one(s) does? -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 6:38 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post :) Larry, big grin. The problem isn't with my ISP. They have no objection to me running this configuration. The problem is with select members of the Linux community (hard to believe, isn't it?). Linux as the operating system is GREAT! I've never been more pleased, as I now have a virtual domain, 4 cnames, several users, and several personal email accounts that I can run off this one box (the one I'm typing into now). I LOVE IT. The problem is that several Linux list owners have decided that dial-up Linux accounts such as you and I run are the perfect attraction for current and future spammers, so they've subscribed to a spam blocking service that blocks any incoming email from dial-up Linux users that are using their Linux box as their MTA. If anything this proves that Bill Gates is still winning, as he's tricked the Linux community into turning on itself and into killing the very operating system features that brought most of us from Windows to Linux. [...] -- Hal B [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux helps those who help themselves -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
Larry, If you check the header of this letter that comes directly to you (not the copy going to the list), there's a small section about mid way down that says (IDENT ...). It will say something like: IDENT glenlee@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Also somewhere in that section is the dynamic IP address that I'm currently logged onto the 'net with. If you do a reverse DNS lookup, that is reverse lookup my dynamic address while I'm still logged on, the domain listed will be returned as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]," with XX being a different number each time I log on and off my ISP. When I send out a letter, the receiving MTA does this reverse DNS lookup to make sure my machine MTA resolves. If it doesn't the mail bounces. The filter that some Linux lists and domains have gone to (I can't mail a letter to anyone at moongroup.com as they bounce all mail from dial-up Linux accounts (at least last weekend they were)), is a subscription spam filter service, http://mail-abuse.org/dul. This particular filter on mail-abuse checks the sending MTA for a dialup account (there are several filters they can chose from. This one includes dial-up accounts as banned sources to block mail from). If the sending MTA shows "dialup" in the IDENT section then the letter is bounced back to the sender. There's a polite note from mail-abuse.org included that says, "If you feel we're abusing you then please contact us." I tried, and my letters to them bounced also for the same reason. I've been "ordered" several times by [EMAIL PROTECTED] to change my configuration to use my ISP as the MTA. If I do that then all outgoing mail from my box has to read as from [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it doesn't I receive a very rude automated letter from my ISP, "we do not relay." This effectively makes my Linux box worthless, as I personally own 5 domains and have to be able to send email from here with the proper return email address. For example, I own and administer the domain www.wesleyan.net. We provide free web pages for Wesleyan churches, free talk lists, and free web rings. When I receive mail addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I need to respond either with the return address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] - something that identifies me with the Wesleyan.Net domain. The configuration I've been told I HAVE to use doesn't allow me to do that - all mail leaving this box reads From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So I'm forced to use my Windows box to take care of professional matters. With that the only use I have left for Linux is in writing and debugging Perl scripts that I use on the domains. So I've decided not to do that. I'm going to keep this configuration using my home PC as its own MTA. I was thrown off of 3 lists last weekend for doing so - [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I can live without them. As I see it the concept behind these lists provides a valuable service. Since they're basically throwing dial-up users who for the most part will be newer to Linux off the lists they're opening up the door for other enterpreneurs who are more gifted at diplomacy to start their own similar lists. That said, if anyone would like to start a list geared at general mail questions, Sendmail, Fetchmail, etc., that allows dial-up users of Linux in, sign me up! My email address is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following is a reverse DNS Perl program you can use to check domain names. If you run this on my current dynamic address (assuming I don't get bounced off my ISP and have to relog on, which will change the address), you can see my account ID with IP address 207.225.144.183 is: dialupE183.mpls.uswest.net * #!/usr/local/bin/perl use Socket; $ip = '207.225.144.183'; $host = gethostbyaddr(inet_aton($ip), AF_INET); print "$ip - $host\n"; exit; Glen Glen Lee Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: :: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" for general perl questions :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Larry Kelley wrote: I'm no mail expert so can't take this very far without doing some research. BUT, how do these list operators know your mail server is on a dial-up account? My Linux server routes mail directly to the destination. The mail server at my ISP doesn't add its own headers. Do you have your Linux box set to relay and are you using it as the outgoing mail server for your users (rather than setting the users to send through your ISP's MTA)? Incidentally, I have yet to subscribe to a list that shows this behavior. May I ask which one(s) does? -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 6:38 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post :) Larry, big grin. The problem isn't with my ISP.
Re: test
Yes it is getting through fine At 06:21 PM 11/22/99 -0700, you wrote: Is this message getting through? In the world of PC's. Ken Griffy Jr. is still the best thing in NW Wash. Brian Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.liberty.ddns.org -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
The filter that some Linux lists and domains have gone to (I can't mail a letter to anyone at moongroup.com as they bounce all mail from dial-up Linux accounts (at least last weekend they were)), is a subscription spam filter service, http://mail-abuse.org/dul. This particular filter on mail-abuse checks the sending MTA for a dialup account (there are several filters they can chose from. This one includes dial-up accounts as banned sources to block mail from). If the sending MTA shows "dialup" in the IDENT section then the letter is bounced back to the sender. There's a polite note from mail-abuse.org included that says, "If you feel we're abusing you then please contact us." I tried, and my letters to them bounced also for the same reason. Please forgive my naivity :).. But after reading some of these, i'm assuming the whole point behind these blooking services is to prevent spam? This would be correct yes? So, if the list is receiving a message from a dialup account, and that account info is identified in the header, and if this person is also enguaging in spam, would it not be perticularly " easy " to catch this person through his dialup account and block him that way, and also for reporting him to his ISP so they can deal with such a person to revolk his account ( if that be there policy ) Oh is this just ( forgive me for this one ) a band-aid solution for a problem we all face, making it easier for people who run list's to get the list done. I especially miss the understanding to this considering this and some of the other List's are Linux lists, that are mentioned in the previous message, and that these same lists are promoting the use of Linux, to a wider audience who are just plain fed up with the Windows operating system and are welcoming the chance to use a much friendlier system in Linux THAT gives them the control that Microsoft lacks... Just some thoughts... I welcome all replies , good, bad, or ugly, especially from people who actually run lists, to see what is actually behind the use of the blocking services in this manner Thanks David -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 01:11:18PM -0800, Larry Kelley wrote: I'm no mail expert so can't take this very far without doing some research. BUT, how do these list operators know your mail server is on a dial-up account? My Linux server routes mail directly to the destination. The mail server at my ISP doesn't add its own headers. Do you have your Linux box set to relay and are you using it as the outgoing mail server for your users (rather than setting the users to send through your ISP's MTA)? Sounds like he is sending mail directly from his box, and the list servers are not able to fully resolve the RETURN-PATH. This is raising a flag that the mail *may* not be legit -- IOW possible spam artist as far as their filters are concerned. Actually I have had that problem, but not this time. All my domains resolve; my real domain, mpls.uswest.net, my virtual domain, holiness.dhis.org, and all 4 cnames that run off this box. This problem is that my letters are being blocked because of my sending ID; dialupE183.mpls.uswest.net It's the dialup part that's causing the trouble. Glen Incidentally, I have yet to subscribe to a list that shows this behavior. May I ask which one(s) does? -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 6:38 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post :) Larry, big grin. The problem isn't with my ISP. They have no objection to me running this configuration. The problem is with select members of the Linux community (hard to believe, isn't it?). Linux as the operating system is GREAT! I've never been more pleased, as I now have a virtual domain, 4 cnames, several users, and several personal email accounts that I can run off this one box (the one I'm typing into now). I LOVE IT. The problem is that several Linux list owners have decided that dial-up Linux accounts such as you and I run are the perfect attraction for current and future spammers, so they've subscribed to a spam blocking service that blocks any incoming email from dial-up Linux users that are using their Linux box as their MTA. If anything this proves that Bill Gates is still winning, as he's tricked the Linux community into turning on itself and into killing the very operating system features that brought most of us from Windows to Linux. [...] -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
Glen You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already) charles On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Glen Lee Edwards wrote: Mike, Yep. That would work better. The system you just mentioned blocks the IP addresses of KNOWN spammers. The system [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vger.rutgers.edu use block Linux boxes with dial-up accounts who are using their box as their MTA. I find it odd that mailhelp exists to explain to us how to use Linux as our own MTA, but when we do so they block us from using their site. The configuration they've told me I HAVE to use to access their list requires me to use my ISP as my MTA. They might as well tell me to bury Linux and use Windows - same end configuration. I'm truly sorry I use Linux on my home PC. And I'm sorry that I'm Internet trash for doing so. Glen I'm truly very happy I use Linux anywhere I can. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
Charles, Don't play games. I run a virtual domain and 4 cnames off my linux dial-up box, plus I administer several other domains I own that are on other servers from here, and have several users on this box. I've been told I HAVE to use envelope masquerading and if I don't to get lost. Envelope masquerading forces every outgoing letter to read as from my dial-up account address. This makes my Linux box absolutely worthless, as I then can't run a single domain from here for my business, nor can I administer the domains I run off the other servers. If I forward mail to my ISP and use it as the MTA instead (a windows configuration) no mail from here goes out as my ISP rejects mail from my users with a "we don't relay" message. Again all mail sent out HAS to read as from my dial-up account, making Linux on this box worthless. Let's face reality, if you want to use Linux, you better be prepared to spend $500 a month for a leased line (as I was recently quoted) so mailhelp, vger.rutgers.edu, and mail-abuse.org consider you to be a part of the financially elect so you're allowed to use Linux as a Linux box, not a Windows clone. I say again, with the configuration mailhelp and mail-abuse.org/dul are forcing us to use, Linux is absolutely worthless. Under that configuration Windows is more user friendly. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote: Glen You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already) charles On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Glen Lee Edwards wrote: Mike, Yep. That would work better. The system you just mentioned blocks the IP addresses of KNOWN spammers. The system [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vger.rutgers.edu use block Linux boxes with dial-up accounts who are using their box as their MTA. I find it odd that mailhelp exists to explain to us how to use Linux as our own MTA, but when we do so they block us from using their site. The configuration they've told me I HAVE to use to access their list requires me to use my ISP as my MTA. They might as well tell me to bury Linux and use Windows - same end configuration. I'm truly sorry I use Linux on my home PC. And I'm sorry that I'm Internet trash for doing so. Glen I'm truly very happy I use Linux anywhere I can. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
Uh, I haven't read this entire thread, but... I run sendmail on a Linux server on a dial-up ISP account and have 20 users on it, all of whom can send mail as themselves from their Win or Mac desktops. Maybe you need a better ISP? Larry -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:25 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post Charles, Don't play games. I run a virtual domain and 4 cnames off my linux dial-up box, plus I administer several other domains I own that are on other servers from here, and have several users on this box. I've been told I HAVE to use envelope masquerading and if I don't to get lost. Envelope masquerading forces every outgoing letter to read as from my dial-up account address. This makes my Linux box absolutely worthless, as I then can't run a single domain from here for my business, nor can I administer the domains I run off the other servers. If I forward mail to my ISP and use it as the MTA instead (a windows configuration) no mail from here goes out as my ISP rejects mail from my users with a "we don't relay" message. Again all mail sent out HAS to read as from my dial-up account, making Linux on this box worthless. Let's face reality, if you want to use Linux, you better be prepared to spend $500 a month for a leased line (as I was recently quoted) so mailhelp, vger.rutgers.edu, and mail-abuse.org consider you to be a part of the financially elect so you're allowed to use Linux as a Linux box, not a Windows clone. I say again, with the configuration mailhelp and mail-abuse.org/dul are forcing us to use, Linux is absolutely worthless. Under that configuration Windows is more user friendly. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote: Glen You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already) charles On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Glen Lee Edwards wrote: Mike, Yep. That would work better. The system you just mentioned blocks the IP addresses of KNOWN spammers. The system [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vger.rutgers.edu use block Linux boxes with dial-up accounts who are using their box as their MTA. I find it odd that mailhelp exists to explain to us how to use Linux as our own MTA, but when we do so they block us from using their site. The configuration they've told me I HAVE to use to access their list requires me to use my ISP as my MTA. They might as well tell me to bury Linux and use Windows - same end configuration. I'm truly sorry I use Linux on my home PC. And I'm sorry that I'm Internet trash for doing so. Glen I'm truly very happy I use Linux anywhere I can. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
I agree, same setup here and she works beautifully. Never had a problem. - Original Message - From: Larry Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:53 PM Subject: RE: test post Uh, I haven't read this entire thread, but... I run sendmail on a Linux server on a dial-up ISP account and have 20 users on it, all of whom can send mail as themselves from their Win or Mac desktops. Maybe you need a better ISP? Larry -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:25 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post Charles, Don't play games. I run a virtual domain and 4 cnames off my linux dial-up box, plus I administer several other domains I own that are on other servers from here, and have several users on this box. I've been told I HAVE to use envelope masquerading and if I don't to get lost. Envelope masquerading forces every outgoing letter to read as from my dial-up account address. This makes my Linux box absolutely worthless, as I then can't run a single domain from here for my business, nor can I administer the domains I run off the other servers. If I forward mail to my ISP and use it as the MTA instead (a windows configuration) no mail from here goes out as my ISP rejects mail from my users with a "we don't relay" message. Again all mail sent out HAS to read as from my dial-up account, making Linux on this box worthless. Let's face reality, if you want to use Linux, you better be prepared to spend $500 a month for a leased line (as I was recently quoted) so mailhelp, vger.rutgers.edu, and mail-abuse.org consider you to be a part of the financially elect so you're allowed to use Linux as a Linux box, not a Windows clone. I say again, with the configuration mailhelp and mail-abuse.org/dul are forcing us to use, Linux is absolutely worthless. Under that configuration Windows is more user friendly. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote: Glen You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already) charles On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Glen Lee Edwards wrote: Mike, Yep. That would work better. The system you just mentioned blocks the IP addresses of KNOWN spammers. The system [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vger.rutgers.edu use block Linux boxes with dial-up accounts who are using their box as their MTA. I find it odd that mailhelp exists to explain to us how to use Linux as our own MTA, but when we do so they block us from using their site. The configuration they've told me I HAVE to use to access their list requires me to use my ISP as my MTA. They might as well tell me to bury Linux and use Windows - same end configuration. I'm truly sorry I use Linux on my home PC. And I'm sorry that I'm Internet trash for doing so. Glen I'm truly very happy I use Linux anywhere I can. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
:) Larry, big grin. The problem isn't with my ISP. They have no objection to me running this configuration. The problem is with select members of the Linux community (hard to believe, isn't it?). Linux as the operating system is GREAT! I've never been more pleased, as I now have a virtual domain, 4 cnames, several users, and several personal email accounts that I can run off this one box (the one I'm typing into now). I LOVE IT. The problem is that several Linux list owners have decided that dial-up Linux accounts such as you and I run are the perfect attraction for current and future spammers, so they've subscribed to a spam blocking service that blocks any incoming email from dial-up Linux users that are using their Linux box as their MTA. If anything this proves that Bill Gates is still winning, as he's tricked the Linux community into turning on itself and into killing the very operating system features that brought most of us from Windows to Linux. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Larry Kelley wrote: Uh, I haven't read this entire thread, but... I run sendmail on a Linux server on a dial-up ISP account and have 20 users on it, all of whom can send mail as themselves from their Win or Mac desktops. Maybe you need a better ISP? Larry -- From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:25 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post Charles, Don't play games. I run a virtual domain and 4 cnames off my linux dial-up box, plus I administer several other domains I own that are on other servers from here, and have several users on this box. I've been told I HAVE to use envelope masquerading and if I don't to get lost. Envelope masquerading forces every outgoing letter to read as from my dial-up account address. This makes my Linux box absolutely worthless, as I then can't run a single domain from here for my business, nor can I administer the domains I run off the other servers. If I forward mail to my ISP and use it as the MTA instead (a windows configuration) no mail from here goes out as my ISP rejects mail from my users with a "we don't relay" message. Again all mail sent out HAS to read as from my dial-up account, making Linux on this box worthless. Let's face reality, if you want to use Linux, you better be prepared to spend $500 a month for a leased line (as I was recently quoted) so mailhelp, vger.rutgers.edu, and mail-abuse.org consider you to be a part of the financially elect so you're allowed to use Linux as a Linux box, not a Windows clone. I say again, with the configuration mailhelp and mail-abuse.org/dul are forcing us to use, Linux is absolutely worthless. Under that configuration Windows is more user friendly. Glen On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote: Glen You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already) charles On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Glen Lee Edwards wrote: Mike, Yep. That would work better. The system you just mentioned blocks the IP addresses of KNOWN spammers. The system [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vger.rutgers.edu use block Linux boxes with dial-up accounts who are using their box as their MTA. I find it odd that mailhelp exists to explain to us how to use Linux as our own MTA, but when we do so they block us from using their site. The configuration they've told me I HAVE to use to access their list requires me to use my ISP as my MTA. They might as well tell me to bury Linux and use Windows - same end configuration. I'm truly sorry I use Linux on my home PC. And I'm sorry that I'm Internet trash for doing so. Glen I'm truly very happy I use Linux anywhere I can. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Hello Glen Lee Edwards, Once you wrote about "Re: test post": Cool. I'm still here. I have a mail question: I'm trying to find a way to get rid of spam mail. When I pull up the header of the offending party what specific part do I need to add to /etc/deny; From:, X-Sender:, Received from: ? Best of all is to use procmail to filter out the spam messages. There you can do whatever you want. I have filters on: - few domains that try to spam me - words "get", "free", "$$$", "make", "money", "join", "member" in the subject - same words in the body of the message - domains that does not belong to me (like they usually send to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - few other small things... -- Best regards, Leonid Mamtchenkov E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote : COBOL programmers understand why women hate periods -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Thanks, Leonid. I suppose that one way to set this up would be to take every list that I have mail coming in from; ^TO.*listname, have this mail sorted to the specific folders. Then have mail addressed directly to me; ^TO.*(glenlee|GLEdwards) sent to a special folder. That should take care of all expected mail. Anything that isn't filtered by the above goes to /dev/null. Is there some way in Procmail to return a letter to the sender with a rejection message? I'm currently doing this from /etc/mail/deny. Some Linux lists are using a service called http://mail-abuse.org to filter out spammers. Problem with this service is that it not only focuses on known spammers, it also checks for certain Linux mailer configurations, and if you have this configuration your mail is rejected from the list even if you've never sent a spam mail in your life. It's the Hitler mentality. Hitler slaughtered legions of Jews because he believed they had the potential for world economic domination and because he considered them to be an inferior race. They weren't slaughtered because of personal crimes they as individuals committed, but because they had the potential to do so. mail-abuse.org follows this lead, rejecting mail sent from Linux boxes with certain configurations because they have the potential to spam, not because they have. Big brother is coming. In a computer dominated society once he controls all our boxes he controls us. Glen On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Leonid Mamtchenkov wrote: Hello Glen Lee Edwards, Once you wrote about "Re: test post": Cool. I'm still here. I have a mail question: I'm trying to find a way to get rid of spam mail. When I pull up the header of the offending party what specific part do I need to add to /etc/deny; From:, X-Sender:, Received from: ? Best of all is to use procmail to filter out the spam messages. There you can do whatever you want. I have filters on: - few domains that try to spam me - words "get", "free", "$$$", "make", "money", "join", "member" in the subject - same words in the body of the message - domains that does not belong to me (like they usually send to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - few other small things... -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
Wouldn't the realtime blackhole list be a better alternative ? http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ Mike -Original Message- From: Glen Lee Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: test post Thanks, Leonid. I suppose that one way to set this up would be to take every list that I have mail coming in from; ^TO.*listname, have this mail sorted to the specific folders. Then have mail addressed directly to me; ^TO.*(glenlee|GLEdwards) sent to a special folder. That should take care of all expected mail. Anything that isn't filtered by the above goes to /dev/null. Is there some way in Procmail to return a letter to the sender with a rejection message? I'm currently doing this from /etc/mail/deny. Some Linux lists are using a service called http://mail-abuse.org to filter out spammers. Problem with this service is that it not only focuses on known spammers, it also checks for certain Linux mailer configurations, and if you have this configuration your mail is rejected from the list even if you've never sent a spam mail in your life. It's the Hitler mentality. Hitler slaughtered legions of Jews because he believed they had the potential for world economic domination and because he considered them to be an inferior race. They weren't slaughtered because of personal crimes they as individuals committed, but because they had the potential to do so. mail-abuse.org follows this lead, rejecting mail sent from Linux boxes with certain configurations because they have the potential to spam, not because they have. Big brother is coming. In a computer dominated society once he controls all our boxes he controls us. Glen -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Hello Glen Lee Edwards, Once you wrote about "Re: test post": Thanks, Leonid. You are welcome anytime ;-) I suppose that one way to set this up would be to take every list that I have mail coming in from; ^TO.*listname, have this mail sorted to the specific folders. Then have mail addressed directly to me; ^TO.*(glenlee|GLEdwards) sent to a special folder. That should take care of all expected mail. Anything that isn't filtered by the above goes to /dev/null. Is there some way in Procmail to return a letter to the sender with a rejection message? I'm currently doing this from /etc/mail/deny. Well, it is OK as a general idea. You can send automatic replies to rejected mail authors, although I personally would not recommend it. As a matter of fact, the way most spam companies are working is the following: they get a list of e-mails (some of those may not be working by the time) and send a message to them. If they get a reply from the address which is not an error, they use the address as alive one. That is the reason you can see the line "Reply with the word 'unsubscribe' to be unsubscribed from this mailing list" in most of the letters. People are naive. They e-mail back. The company that recieves the reply sees that the address is alive and someone is checking mail on it, so they send you even more spam. So, the automatic reply will generate more mail for your box, and will request more resources for filtering. Instead, what you can do is copy all incoming messages before filtering to the special mailbox/mailfolder. You can check it occasionally, or in case that you know that someone sent to you something and you have not recieved it. By the way, additionally to checking TO: field of the messages, you may want to check the Subject: and X-Sender: fields. Also you can look for certain patterns in the body of the message. For the examples of effective procmail usage check out "man procmailex". Some Linux lists are using a service called http://mail-abuse.org to filter out spammers. Problem with this service is that it not only focuses on known spammers, it also checks for certain Linux mailer configurations, and if you have this configuration your mail is rejected from the list even if you've never sent a spam mail in your life. It's the Hitler mentality. Hitler slaughtered legions of Jews because he believed they had the potential for world economic domination and because he considered them to be an inferior race. They weren't slaughtered because of personal crimes they as individuals committed, but because they had the potential to do so. mail-abuse.org follows this lead, rejecting mail sent from Linux boxes with certain configurations because they have the potential to spam, not because they have. Yes, this policy exists. What above-mentioned servers are doing, is checking mail servers for the relay permissions. You can do it yourself, by completing following telneting to the server on 25th port and trying to send mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or any other obscure addresses). If you will get message saying "Relaying denied", you are OK. If instead you will get something like "Recipient OK" and "Sender OK", then you host allows relay. You will NEED to reconfigure you mail server software. Read the documention for more details. Big brother is coming. In a computer dominated society once he controls all our boxes he controls us. ...actually, I think that millions of Big Brothers are coming and they will live in nice Big [Brother] Community ;-) -- Best regards, Leonid Mamtchenkov E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote : Old programmers never die; they exit to a higher shell. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
Mike, Yep. That would work better. The system you just mentioned blocks the IP addresses of KNOWN spammers. The system [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vger.rutgers.edu use block Linux boxes with dial-up accounts who are using their box as their MTA. I find it odd that mailhelp exists to explain to us how to use Linux as our own MTA, but when we do so they block us from using their site. The configuration they've told me I HAVE to use to access their list requires me to use my ISP as my MTA. They might as well tell me to bury Linux and use Windows - same end configuration. I'm truly sorry I use Linux on my home PC. And I'm sorry that I'm Internet trash for doing so. Glen On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Mike A. Lewis wrote: Wouldn't the realtime blackhole list be a better alternative ? http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ Mike -Original Message- From: Glen Lee Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: test post Thanks, Leonid. I suppose that one way to set this up would be to take every list that I have mail coming in from; ^TO.*listname, have this mail sorted to the specific folders. Then have mail addressed directly to me; ^TO.*(glenlee|GLEdwards) sent to a special folder. That should take care of all expected mail. Anything that isn't filtered by the above goes to /dev/null. Is there some way in Procmail to return a letter to the sender with a rejection message? I'm currently doing this from /etc/mail/deny. Some Linux lists are using a service called http://mail-abuse.org to filter out spammers. Problem with this service is that it not only focuses on known spammers, it also checks for certain Linux mailer configurations, and if you have this configuration your mail is rejected from the list even if you've never sent a spam mail in your life. It's the Hitler mentality. Hitler slaughtered legions of Jews because he believed they had the potential for world economic domination and because he considered them to be an inferior race. They weren't slaughtered because of personal crimes they as individuals committed, but because they had the potential to do so. mail-abuse.org follows this lead, rejecting mail sent from Linux boxes with certain configurations because they have the potential to spam, not because they have. Big brother is coming. In a computer dominated society once he controls all our boxes he controls us. Glen -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Hello Mike A. Lewis, Once you wrote about "RE: test post": Wouldn't the realtime blackhole list be a better alternative ? http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ I don't think so. First it is still not that well-known how to use it for individuals, since their site is not that informative. Except of course, that of to use one of the mailers that support their database. Secondly, spammers are very fast in changing their servers, so you will still get alot of spam. On the contrary, procmail will cut all crap without taking care about if it is for you or not. You just give it the rulez and it simply follows. Thirdly, procmail is much more customizable. You can peronalize you settings and change them as often as you want, independently of anyone. -- Best regards, Leonid Mamtchenkov E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote : Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat. -- Mark Twain -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: test post
They're one and the same... -- Juha -Original Message- From: Mike A. Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 22 November 1999 11:46 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: test post Wouldn't the realtime blackhole list be a better alternative ? http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ Mike -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Yes, this policy exists. What above-mentioned servers are doing, is checking mail servers for the relay permissions. You can do it yourself, by completing following telneting to the server on 25th port and trying to send mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or any other obscure addresses). If you will get message saying "Relaying denied", you are OK. If instead you will get something like "Recipient OK" and "Sender OK", then you host allows relay. You will NEED to reconfigure you mail server software. Read the documention for more details. Need some clarification here: I'm assuming that the preferred setting is to not allow relaying? I believe I'm set up that way but I'll check to make sure. Thanks for your response. Glen -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Hello Glen Lee Edwards, Once you wrote about "Re: test post": Yes, this policy exists. What above-mentioned servers are doing, is checking mail servers for the relay permissions. You can do it yourself, by completing following telneting to the server on 25th port and trying to send mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or any other obscure addresses). If you will get message saying "Relaying denied", you are OK. If instead you will get something like "Recipient OK" and "Sender OK", then you host allows relay. You will NEED to reconfigure you mail server software. Read the documention for more details. Need some clarification here: I'm assuming that the preferred setting is to not allow relaying? I believe I'm set up that way but I'll check to make sure. Yup. To make it clear, your mail server should allow incoming mail ONLY for your domain(s). -- Best regards, Leonid Mamtchenkov E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quote : Windows 95 is working ? Oh, boy, you got the virus! -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Cool. I'm still here. I have a mail question: I'm trying to find a way to get rid of spam mail. When I pull up the header of the offending party what specific part do I need to add to /etc/deny; From:, X-Sender:, Received from: ? Thanks, Glen On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Glen Lee Edwards wrote: This is a test post. Today I've been thrown off 3 lists because I have a Linux box on a dial up account, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just checking to see if Red Hat has thrown me off too. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test post
Glen Lee Edwards wrote: This is a test post. Today I've been thrown off 3 lists because I have a Linux box on a dial up account, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just checking to see if Red Hat has thrown me off too. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Gotcha, if that's any good. HTH -- ** Ian Jennings Microware Data Services Ltd. This post is made entirely from recycyled ones and noughts ** -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: test mail DO NOT READ
Dang. -- PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES! http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
