Re: Dumb networking question...

2003-04-02 Thread pll
In a message dated: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 20:25:50 EST Ben Boulanger said: >On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Derek Martin wrote: >> This is not entirely true. Many switches have ports that auto-sense >> whether they should be crossed over or straight through... > >Never heard of this - got any models I can look u

Re: Dumb networking question...

2003-04-02 Thread Bob Bell
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:25:50PM -0500, Ben Boulanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Derek Martin wrote: > > This is not entirely true. Many switches have ports that auto-sense > > whether they should be crossed over or straight through... > > Never heard of this - got any mod

Re: Dumb networking question...

2003-04-02 Thread Hewitt Tech
One other piece of the puzzle fell into place. Although I had VPN connections going from one gateway to the other, I couldn't ping addresses for machines behind the other gateway. Further perusal of the 3 Com documents (not included with the device but on their web site) showed that the LANs needed

Re: Dumb networking question...

2003-04-02 Thread John Abreau
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ben Boulanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Derek Martin wrote: > > This is not entirely true. Many switches have ports that auto-sense > > whether they should be crossed over or straight through... > > Never heard of this - got

Re: Dumb networking question...

2003-04-02 Thread jim . mcginness
Alex (Hewitt Tech) wrote: > So the person who said there > might be a routing problem was correct. Simply setting the two LANs to > 192.168.1.* and 192.168.2.* respectively fixed the problem. I think that may have been me, but it was in a message that didn't go to the list. [I don't consider

Re: Dumb networking question...

2003-04-02 Thread Hewitt Tech
Thanks Jim. With 20/20 hindsight I think this problem should have been easier but... -Alex - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:22 PM Subject: Re: Dumb networking question... Alex (Hewitt Tech) wrote: > So the person

sendmail, procmail, and damaged 'from ' lines in mbox files

2003-04-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
i've just discovered that *something* appears to be occasionally damaging my mbox inbox (/var/spool/mail/$USER) on my server. procmail is my local delivery agent, and so all the messages get their 'From ' lines rewritten to 'From coar '. however, i've just noticed that sometimes this is truncated

Re: sendmail, procmail, and damaged 'from ' lines in mbox files

2003-04-02 Thread Morbus Iff
>i've just discovered that *something* appears to be occasionally >damaging my mbox inbox (/var/spool/mail/$USER) on my server. >procmail is my local delivery agent, and so all the messages >get their 'From ' lines rewritten to 'From coar '. > >however, i've just noticed that sometimes this is tru

Re: sendmail, procmail, and damaged 'from ' lines in mbox files

2003-04-02 Thread Marc Evans
Add this to the end of your .procmailrc: # Work around procmail bug: any output on stderr will cause the "F" in "From" # to be dropped. This will re-add it. :0 H * ! ^From[ ] * ^rom[ ] { LOG="*** Dropped F off From_ header! Fixing

Re: sendmail, procmail, and damaged 'from ' lines in mbox files

2003-04-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Morbus Iff wrote: > >however, i've just noticed that sometimes this is truncated to > >'rom coar ' -- i.e., the leading 'F' gets gobbled somehow. > > Yeah, take a look here: > >http://spamassassin.org/dist/procmailrc.example > > where it remarks: "Work around procmail bug: any output on s