[ unexplainable huge phone bill ]
> You are right, those comments don't help anyone and I apologise for making
> them. The reason that more infomation has not been forthcoming from me is
> that the server in question no longer exists.
I control both sides of a SME dialup connection (hint: I hel
om: Charlie Brady [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday 15 July 2002 9:47 PM
> To: Mark Wilkinson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [e-smith-devinfo] Diald/Dial-0n-demand/DNS discussion
>
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
>
> > Hmmm... must ha
Gordon,
Along with the improvements of diald, I have found another useful change
for qmail:
http://www.leverton.org/qmail.html
Extract:
With this patch, which modifies only qmail-send, it's possible to hold
and release the remote delivery queue at will, using a new parameter
"holdremote", whi
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
> I will setup another server with the same configuration and see if I can
> replicate the problem. Is it possible that the problem could have been
> hardware?
Anything is possible, but I would be surprised. A faulty modem can be
ruled out, as no dia
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 11:17:14AM -0400, "Smith, Jeffery S (Scott)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gordon
>
> Wouldn't this (and similar research items) be a good candidate for a survey
> on the e-smith.org home page? Doesn't nuke provide for such things?
Yes and yes, though I think it would be
Gordon,
Just reading through more of the diald filters:
# If you are running named, then it will send data across the link
# periodically to synchronize against other domain name servers.
# Since this can happen at any time, it is undesirable to keep the
# link up for it. Therefore, we ignore any
Gordon Rowell wrote:
> Here's a good exercise which will help us determine what could be tuned
> and how - fill out the following tables (in text please) for your
> environment.
>
> I think Brandon has volunteered to collate the information :-)
Yep no-problem, I have my mysql database setu
It "SEEMS" Charlie that you need a bit more coffee :)
You don't have to scrutinize each word.just think out aloud here!
My questionactually nevermind I will research first before asking it.!
Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Brandon Friedman wrote:
>
>
>>h I agreed.
M
> Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Charging regimes (was Re:
> [e-smith-devinfo] Diald/Dial-0n-demand/DNS discussion)
>
[snip]
>
> Here's a good exercise which will help us determine what
> could be tuned and how - fill out the following tables (in
> text please) f
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Brandon Friedman wrote:
> h I agreed with 4.x, I had almost no hassle with dial-up???
>
> 4.1.2 and up has seem to be more problematic
Please do not ever again say "seems". Present evidence(*). We have gotten,
and will get, nowhere with "seems".
(*) If you can
Gordon Rowell wrote:
> Hmm, I know quite a few who have no such restriction. People with
> "continuous" connections will typically want the link up ASAP, so yes
> it would need to be configurable.
>
> IIRC, the Australian charging regime is still:
>
> - $0.xx per call flagfall (xx =~ 20)
> -
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 10:25:09AM -0400, Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> Other regimes have:
>
> - no per call flagfall
> - untimed local calls
> [...]
Here's a good exercise which will help us determine what could be tuned
and how - fill out the following tables (in text ple
h I agreed with 4.x, I had almost no hassle with dial-up???
4.1.2 and up has seem to be more problematic
Were there any major changes in the dial-up config between 4.x and 5.x?
Filippo Carletti wrote:
>>"never" at all times *should* mean no dialups - the diald filter should be
>>pr
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 09:52:22PM +0800, Craig Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...Please trim replies...]
> Can I make the suggestion that the timeout period be configurable during
> setup? I know many ISPs set a 10 or 15 minute timeout before being able
> to dial in again.
Hmm, I know qui
> -Original Message-
> From: Gordon Rowell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 8:12 PM
> To: Brandon Friedman
> Cc: Paul Miller; Mark Wilkinson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Diald/Dial-0n-demand/DNS discussion
>
>
&
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
> Hmmm... must have been my imagination. I'll let the client know that the
> huge phone bill was their imagination too.
Those comments don't help anyone, Mark. Wherever the problem was, there
needs to be an accurate and detailed diagnosis before anyo
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 09:18:41AM -0400, Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Filippo Carletti wrote:
>
> > > "never" at all times *should* mean no dialups - the diald filter should be
> > > programmed to "down". If it doesn't, then in my book that's a bug. If a
>
t; Cc: Gordon Rowell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Diald/Dial-0n-demand/DNS discussion
>
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Filippo Carletti wrote:
>
> > > "never" at all times *should* mean no dialups - the diald
> filter should be
> > > pro
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Filippo Carletti wrote:
> > "never" at all times *should* mean no dialups - the diald filter should be
> > programmed to "down". If it doesn't, then in my book that's a bug. If a
>
> It works as it should, "never" means no outgoing dialup attempts.
> At least on 4.1.2, 5.0
On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:43:58AM +0200, Brandon Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> Unfortunately we some of us can't just change technology on the
> fly...too expensive or isn't supported.
>
> We need a better dial-up solution!
At the risk of sounding like a broken record - _
> "never" at all times *should* mean no dialups - the diald filter should be
> programmed to "down". If it doesn't, then in my book that's a bug. If a
It works as it should, "never" means no outgoing dialup attempts.
At least on 4.1.2, 5.0 and 5.1.2.
Ciao,
Filippo
--
Please report bugs to [E
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Gordon Rowell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:09:53AM +0800, Mark Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > I can't answer that now as the server is no longer setup. I thought that
> > > the "never" option would preven
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Gordon Rowell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:09:53AM +0800, Mark Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can't answer that now as the server is no longer setup. I thought that
> > the "never" option would prevent dialling no matter what was requested from
> > client
Gordon Rowell wrote:
> Hmm, "never" is probably the wrong term to use. The _server_ will not
> request a dial out with this setting but a connection from a LAN machine
> to the Internet may cause a dial-up.
Yes I found this out the hard way! However I agree with Mark, that if it
is indicates
Hi Paul
Unfortunately we some of us can't just change technology on the
fly...too expensive or isn't supported.
We need a better dial-up solution!
Paul Miller wrote:
>>
>> As you can't be absolutely sure that the machine is not dialling until
>> you
>> receive your phone bill (cringe!), one
ell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday 14 July 2002 2:13 AM
> To: Mark Wilkinson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Diald/Dial-0n-demand/DNS discussion
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:09:53AM +0800, Mark Wilkinson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:09:53AM +0800, Mark Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't answer that now as the server is no longer setup. I thought that
> the "never" option would prevent dialling no matter what was requested from
> clients or the server.
Note: I'm wearing my personal hat
>
>As you can't be absolutely sure that the machine is not dialling until you
>receive your phone bill (cringe!), one of my colleagues solves the problem
>by plugging the modem power pack into an electronic timer plug so the power
>to the modem is cut outside of outside office hours; crude but eff
day 12 July 2002 7:38 PM
> To: Brandon Friedman
> Cc: Mark Wilkinson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Diald/Dial-0n-demand/DNS discussion
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:43:52AM +0200, Brandon Friedman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hehehe.
&g
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:43:52AM +0200, Brandon Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> hehehe.
>
> Mark Wilkinson wrote:
>
>
> > The client solved it by telling me where to put the SME machine!
>
>
> I feel that might happen to me shortly!
Which would naturally be bad. But, as we have
hehehe.
Mark Wilkinson wrote:
> The client solved it by telling me where to put the SME machine!
I feel that might happen to me shortly!
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues
Support for registered customers and partne
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
> I had a similar (very expensive) problem with dialling at a school that had
> an account that was only active during office hours during the week. If you
> tried to connect outside those hours you would be disconnected by the ISP.
> I set the dialup
__
> -Original Message-
> From: Gordon Rowell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday 11 July 2002 10:02 PM
> To: Brandon Friedman
> Cc: Mitel Devinfo List
> Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Diald/Dial-0n-demand/DNS discussion
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Brandon Friedman wrote:
> Charlie Brady wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Brandon Friedman wrote:
> >
> >>I am looking to start a discussion about dial-up on SME.
> >
> > We've had it before.
>
> Yes and it's still a problem!
Please re-read (and hopefully understand) th
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 06:41:33PM +0200, Brandon Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [...]
> Yes, this is using dialmon - we install this by default.
>
>
> We would like the link to be down all time unless there is a schedule
> mail retrieval.
You have all the bits you need to make this wo
Gordon Rowell wrote:
> One behaviour which may be appropriate is to always keep the link
> down and only bring it up at scheduled intervals. I did something like
> this with Stephen Noble some time back.
Yes, this is using dialmon - we install this by default.
We would like the link to be d
Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Brandon Friedman wrote:
>
>
>>I am looking to start a discussion about dial-up on SME.
>>
>
> We've had it before.
Yes and it's still a problem!
>>As some you have found out (the hard) - SME dial-up seems to be irratic!
>>
>
> You didn't prese
Kees Vonk wrote:
> I have the same problem and someone told me it was because the server wanted
> to update its DNS cache. If we could somehow tie this cache update to an
> already dailed out session and just serve DNS requests out of the (maybe
> expired) cache for the rest of the time that
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Brandon Friedman wrote:
> I am looking to start a discussion about dial-up on SME.
We've had it before.
> As some you have found out (the hard) - SME dial-up seems to be irratic!
You didn't present evidence for that before, and you haven't done it now.
> Firstly I would
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 03:29:43PM +0200, Brandon Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> I am looking to start a discussion about dial-up on SME. As some you
> have found out (the hard) - SME dial-up seems to be irratic!
No, it's not erratic. It is doing exactly what is being reque
Oops, sorry - I too am quick on the Send button.
Don't know much about the technical aspects of diald, but the first thing to
nail is your clients as they are probably the largest source of DNS lookups,
especially for 'workgroup'
Any time server requests kicking about as well ?
Some AV program
- Original Message -
From: "Brandon Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mitel Devinfo List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: [e-smith-devinfo] Diald/Dial-0n-demand/DNS discussion
> Hi Folks
>
> I am looking to start a discussion about dial-up on SME. As
42 matches
Mail list logo
