Bonjour,
Je souhaite mettre en place un serveur sous Bullseye, "auto-configurable
faisant office de double passerelle réseau vers Internet".
Par auto-configurable, j'entends ici que:
1.les 2 interfaces WAN se configurent pas DHCP,
2. je veux éviter d'avoir à scripter le client DHCP lire et
On 22/3/21 5:17 am, Dan Ritter wrote:
ghe2001 wrote:
There are 2 computers on my LAN. I'll call one Fast and the other Slow. When
I, for example, type ping www.cbs.com, Fast pings right away, Slow pauses for
about 5 seconds ('time' says that). When I ping something in /etc/hosts, both
ghe2001 wrote:
> There are 2 computers on my LAN. I'll call one Fast and the other Slow.
> When I, for example, type ping www.cbs.com, Fast pings right away, Slow
> pauses for about 5 seconds ('time' says that). When I ping something in
> /etc/hosts, both start right away. On Slow, 'route'
in /etc/hosts, both
start right away. On Slow, 'route' takes the 5 second pause, but 'route -n' is
fast. On Fast, both are equally snappy.
It didn't used to be that way. They both used to be snappy. And I can't
figure out why.
Routing tables:
Fast:
route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination
Vincenzo Villa wrote:
> It seem a sort of cache, but no effect with ip route flush or ip rule
> flush.
look at arp
private
> IP address.
>
> I have two routing tables and some rule to select actual route. For
> example:
> ip route add 192.168.111.0/24 dev ens192 table ISPB
> ip route add default via 192.168.111.254 table ISPB
> ip route add 192.168.10.0/24 dev ens256 table ISPA
> ip route add
Hi all
I have a router (Buster) with two Internet connection. Some workstation
use the first connection, others the second one, based on their private
IP address.
I have two routing tables and some rule to select actual route. For
example:
ip route add 192.168.111.0/24 dev ens192 table ISPB
ip
On 17/12/19 5:06 pm, Richard Hector wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've got a networking issue that's confusing me.
Got it, I think.
I had previously been applying rules before switching to iptables-legacy
- so I'd been adding nftables rules. Then I switched, without flushing
(or rebooting), so both
/24)
Here's the routing table:
8<
richard@svrouter:~$ sudo ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev enp4s0.1 onlink
10.144.1.0/24 dev enp4s0.1441 proto kernel scope link src 10.144.1.1
10.144.2.0/24 dev enp4s0.1442 proto kernel scope link src 10.144.2.1
192.168.1.0
Hi,
I don’t know if this is the right place to ask, if my problem is not too
specific or something.
Is source-specific routing possible under debian? I think this is what
I need in my case ("multihoming" I think): on my laptop I'm generally
connected too zero up to two differents netw
On 2018-08-16, john doe wrote:
> This configuration assumes that the clients will get "all configuration"
> from the server.
Initially I had a problem importing my VPN settings to network
manager. Now I see it is working and I was able to fill in the gaps so
I got a working VPN connection.
I
On 8/16/2018 8:53 AM, Piotr Martyniuk wrote:
On 2018-08-16, john doe wrote:
On the vpn client are you getting the proper DNS in '/etc/resolv.conf'
when connected to your vpn server?
It changes (adds nameserver 192.168.2.1 on top), but this does not
seems to be valid as the IP's I got are
On 2018-08-16, john doe wrote:
> On the vpn client are you getting the proper DNS in '/etc/resolv.conf'
> when connected to your vpn server?
It changes (adds nameserver 192.168.2.1 on top), but this does not
seems to be valid as the IP's I got are from the network 10.8.0.xx and
the one I got is
On 8/16/2018 7:56 AM, Piotr Martyniuk wrote:
On 2018-08-06, Joe wrote:
I believe it should happen by default, this is almost always what you
want. I'm fairly sure I've never had to ask for this.
When the VPN connects, Network Manager should adjust routing so that
the VPN becomes the default
On 2018-08-06, Joe wrote:
> I believe it should happen by default, this is almost always what you
> want. I'm fairly sure I've never had to ask for this.
>
> When the VPN connects, Network Manager should adjust routing so that
> the VPN becomes the default gateway. To disable
've never had to ask for this.
>
> When the VPN connects, Network Manager should adjust routing so that
> the VPN becomes the default gateway. To disable this behaviour, there
> is a tick box somewhere in IP properties of the VPN connection, I think.
>
That is usually something that is
not
> available).
>
> The only problem is that I do not know how to do this.
I believe it should happen by default, this is almost always what you
want. I'm fairly sure I've never had to ask for this.
When the VPN connects, Network Manager should adjust routing so that
the VPN becomes the def
Hi,
On Debian Stretch I managed to configure VPN connection using network-
manager. Now I would like to redirect all traffic to VPN (whenever VPN is
available) and revert back to current state (if VPN is not available).
The only problem is that I do not know how to do this.
Kind regads,
Piotr
Hi,
On Debian Stretch I managed to configure VPN connection using network-
manager. Now I would like to redirect all traffic to VPN (whenever VPN is
available) and revert back to current state (if VPN is not available).
The only problem is that I do not know how to do this.
Kind regads,
Piotr
[This mail was also posted to linux.debian.user.]
Hi,
On Debian Stretch I managed to configure VPN connection using network-
manager. Now I would like to redirect all traffic to VPN (whenever VPN is
available) and revert back to current state (if VPN is not available).
The only problem is that
On 05/06/2016 04:43 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 05/05/2016 21:05, ken a écrit :
Working on the Pi just from the bash prompt as root, how do I set the
routing table (etc.) to connect directly to the DSL modem? The routing
table on my router currently shows:
# route -n
Kernel IP routing
Le 05/05/2016 21:05, ken a écrit :
Working on the Pi just from the bash prompt as root, how do I set the
routing table (etc.) to connect directly to the DSL modem? The routing
table on my router currently shows:
# route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask
of the problem except the DSL modem
and the RPi. Since, however, I get the same results on four other nodes
inside the house as I get from the Pi, the problem is likely not the Pi's.
Setting up for testing:
Working on the Pi just from the bash prompt as root, how do I set the
routing table
El Tue, 31 de Mar de 2015, a las 01:56:29PM +, Camaleón dijo:
0: from all lookup local
10: from all lookup main
249:from 172.16.0.2 lookup TABLA1
250:from 172.17.0.2 lookup TABLA2
999:from 192.168.0.0/24 lookup TABLA1
1000: from 192.168.1.0/24 lookup
El Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:02:15 +0200, José Miguel (sio2) escribió:
Tengo una duda acerca de cómo establece una máquina linux la ip de
origen de los paquetes que genera y cómo escoge la interfaz de salida.
Obviamente me estoy refiriendo al caso de que tengamos varias
interfaces.
(...)
Todo
Un saludo a la lista:
Tengo una duda acerca de cómo establece una máquina linux la ip de
origen de los paquetes que genera y cómo escoge la interfaz de salida.
Obviamente me estoy refiriendo al caso de que tengamos varias
interfaces.
Supongamos el siguiente caso:
++
--
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:18:08 +, Juan R. de Silva wrote:
Here is my routing table:
0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00
eth0 192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 0
0 eth0
The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected
Quoting Gene Heskett (ghesk...@wdtv.com):
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:34:17 Juan R. de Silva wrote:
That looks 10% legit to me.
10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-)
Thats a genuine typu, s/b 100%. 80yo fingers don't always type what my
brain tells them... :(
However, your response
That looks 10% legit to me.
10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/md84pp$t22$1...@ger.gmane.org
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:18:08 Juan R. de Silva wrote:
Here is my routing table:
0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00
eth0 192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 0
0 eth0
The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected
Juan R. de Silva wrote:
Here is my routing table:
0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0
192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 00 eth0
The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected.
The second line, however
Did you mean typo? :P (Yeah I understand typos from you now.)
The table does not appear to have problems, you can always nmap it though,
it tells what it is, in terms of operating system and open ports.
(sudo apt-get install nmap)
nmap -sV [IPv4 Address]
On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Gene
Here is my routing table:
0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0
192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 00 eth0
The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected.
The second line, however, is something I cannot neither recognize
On 03/04/2015 03:18 PM, Juan R. de Silva wrote:
Here is my routing table:
0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0
192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 00 eth0
The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected.
The second line
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 21:39:16 David Wright wrote:
Quoting Gene Heskett (ghesk...@wdtv.com):
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:34:17 Juan R. de Silva wrote:
That looks 10% legit to me.
10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-)
Thats a genuine typu, s/b 100%. 80yo fingers don't always
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:34:17 Juan R. de Silva wrote:
That looks 10% legit to me.
10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-)
Thats a genuine typu, s/b 100%. 80yo fingers don't always type what my
brain tells them... :(
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
There are four boxes to be used in defense of
to add an exception to the default
route for the LAN subnet in table 10 to make the routing direct :
ip route add 192.168.29.0/24 dev eth0 table 10
(If required, replace eth0 with whatever the LAN interface is.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
a bad job, not forwarding packets from
LAN to LAN. Anyway, it is better to add an exception to the default
route for the LAN subnet in table 10 to make the routing direct :
ip route add 192.168.29.0/24 dev eth0 table 10
(If required, replace eth0 with whatever the LAN interface is.)
Ah
On 13/11/14 11:10, Luis Finotti wrote:
Ah, that worked! Could you explain the 192.168.29.0/24 syntax
though? I'm having a hard time finding what it means. (Is it a range
0 to 24?)
The /24 means that only the first 24 bits of the address are
significant for matching purposes. So,
On 13/11/14 11:10, Luis Finotti wrote:
Ah, that worked! Could you explain the 192.168.29.0/24 syntax
though? I'm having a hard time finding what it means. (Is it a range
0 to 24?)
The /24 means that only the first 24 bits of the address are
significant for matching purposes. So,
I'm having problems connecting to my desktop (running actually
aptosid, which is virtually simply Debian Sid with a different kernel
and a few extra tools and customizations).
Here is the situation: my desktop is connected to a VPN service. (The
router to which the desktop is connected is not,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Igor Cicimov icici...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/11/2014 6:17 AM, Luis Finotti luis.fino...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm having problems connecting to my desktop (running actually
aptosid, which is virtually simply Debian Sid with a different kernel
and a few extra tools
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hola,
El 28/08/2014 10:33 a.m., Camaleón escribió:
El Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:00:31 -0300, Francisco Del Roio escribió:
Por cuestiones que no vienen al caso, estoy trabajando bajo
windows, y pretendo configurarme un router con una máquina
virtual,
El día 28 de agosto de 2014, 4:27, William Romero
wromer...@hotmail.com escribió:
Buenas,
Por cuestiones que no vienen al caso, estoy trabajando bajo windows, y
pretendo configurarme un router con una máquina virtual, para hacer
pruebas.
Quisiera una explicación simple de la configuración
El Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:00:31 -0300, Francisco Del Roio escribió:
Por cuestiones que no vienen al caso, estoy trabajando bajo windows, y
pretendo configurarme un router con una máquina virtual, para hacer
pruebas.
Quisiera una explicación simple de la configuración que debo aplicar a
la VM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Buenas,
Por cuestiones que no vienen al caso, estoy trabajando bajo windows, y
pretendo configurarme un router con una máquina virtual, para hacer
pruebas.
Quisiera una explicación simple de la configuración que debo aplicar a
la VM y luego al
Buenas,
Por cuestiones que no vienen al caso, estoy trabajando bajo windows, y
pretendo configurarme un router con una máquina virtual, para hacer
pruebas.
Quisiera una explicación simple de la configuración que debo aplicar a
la VM y luego al sistema invitado, que pretendo que sea un
On 8/5/2014 10:24 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 20140805_0004+0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 04 aug 14, 08:52:17, Paul E Condon wrote:
I've spent some time recently, trying to use the Gmail browser
interface. I would never switch to it from Mutt, excepting only if
Microsoft does a
On 20140804_2358+0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Du, 03 aug 14, 13:28:06, Bob Proulx wrote:
P.S. I still think digests are less desirable because I don't see a
way to view the discussion in a threaded view. Threaded views have
been around for so long that I couldn't live without them.
On Ma, 05 aug 14, 13:01:48, Bob Proulx wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
I'm not very familiar with Gmail's interface, but Outlook definitely
does have threaded views.
As of the last time I used Outlook a couple of years ago Outlook did
not have threads but had conversations. Outlook
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
P.S. I still think digests are less desirable because I don't see a
way to view the discussion in a threaded view. Threaded views have
been around for so long that I couldn't live without them. Of course
Gmail and Outlook users don't have threaded
! :)
--
Isaac Freeman - Systems Administrator
IBM SmartCloud Managed Backup
is...@us.ibm.com
919-254-0245
From: Pascal Hambourg pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org,
Cc: Isaac Freeman/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 08/02/2014 02:45 PM
Subject:Re: Network routing on multi
On 20140805_0004+0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 04 aug 14, 08:52:17, Paul E Condon wrote:
I've spent some time recently, trying to use the Gmail browser
interface. I would never switch to it from Mutt, excepting only if
Microsoft does a corporate take-over of Debian (They are both
On Dom, 03 Ago 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
The inability of people to deal with digest messages these days is the
main reason I think digests should be removed as a mailing list
option.
+1 to that.
I'd also like a filter that rejects mails that have Re: (and
variations) in the Subject and no
On Sunday 03 August 2014 15:48:54 Steve Litt wrote:
LOL, Kmail2 breaks your entire email universe:
http://troubleshooters.com/lpm/201202/201202.htm
Steve, that article basically refers to KDE4 (Nepomuk? Akonadi? Ubuntu
11.10?), which we can agree is a monstrosity, IMHO anyway.
Lisi
--
To
On 20140803_1328-0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
I used a variety of mailers back then and I don't recall which ones
handled digests nicely and which did not.
I just tested mutt and digests and mutt handles message digests quite
well. And furthermore because the Debian lists
On Du, 03 aug 14, 13:28:06, Bob Proulx wrote:
P.S. I still think digests are less desirable because I don't see a
way to view the discussion in a threaded view. Threaded views have
been around for so long that I couldn't live without them. Of course
Gmail and Outlook users don't have
On Lu, 04 aug 14, 08:52:17, Paul E Condon wrote:
I've spent some time recently, trying to use the Gmail browser
interface. I would never switch to it from Mutt, excepting only if
Microsoft does a corporate take-over of Debian (They are both
corporations under the Law, and under the Law,
On Monday 04 August 2014 21:58:36 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
I'm not very familiar with Gmail's interface
Lucky you. ;-)
Lisi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:41:06 +0100
Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 29 July 2014 20:09:41 Brian wrote:
When you reply threading is broken. Surely you can see that. Could
be kmail of course.
Replying from the digest breaks threads. I eschew KDE 4, so I don't
know about
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:42:53 +0100
Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:14:20 +0300
David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il wrote:
Hello David,
Or is there some header or marker I should be hitting as well?
Reference and/or Reply-To headers. The digest, depending on
On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 10:55:00 -0400
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote:
Hello Steve,
Yes, but *not* changing the Subject is an atrocity. I've often thought
of piping everything with digest type Subjects to /dev/null. Another
atrocity is these guys who leave the entire digest intact when
On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 16:41:17 +0100
Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
Quite an achievement, given that
99.% of MUAs quote correctly out of the box.
I'm fairly old to Debian. I run a few email servers. I know the ins
and outs of lots of things. And yet, I've rarely posted to mailing
On Sunday 03 August 2014 15:48:54 Steve Litt wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:41:06 +0100
Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 29 July 2014 20:09:41 Brian wrote:
When you reply threading is broken. Surely you can see that. Could
be kmail of course.
Replying from the digest
On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 12:38:16 -0400
AW debian.list.trac...@1024bits.com wrote:
Hello AW,
lists. So, I don't know what I'm doing with regards to top/bottom
postings, quoting, etc... There are many good reasons why a particular
Based on that and what you go on to say, it's obvious you're willing
David Baron wrote:
Replying from the digest breaks threads. I eschew KDE 4, so I don't know
about KMail in KDE4, but KDE3 KMail does not break threads.
I do not understand the difference. If I hit reply, so I get the
title of the digest which I replace with the desired re: Should
Bob Proulx wrote:
I used a variety of mailers back then and I don't recall which ones
handled digests nicely and which did not.
I just tested mutt and digests and mutt handles message digests quite
well. And furthermore because the Debian lists includes the
individual messages as MIME
Hello,
Isaac Freeman a écrit :
iface eth1 inet static
address 172.1.1.40
netmask 255.255.255.224
# routing
post-up ip route add 172.1.1.62/32 dev eth1 src 172.1.1.40 table
external
post-up ip route add default via 172.1.1.62 table external
post-up
I'm not subscribed to the list, so please make sure my actual e-mail
address is on copy if you reply.
This is a slightly complicated network routing issue so please bear with me
while I try to organize all the relevant info.
So, I'm setting up a secondary DNS server to act as a slave of my
On Wednesday 30 July 2014 02:52:38 debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org
wrote:
When you reply threading is broken. Surely you can see that. Could be
kmail of course.
Replying from the digest breaks threads. I eschew KDE 4, so I don't know
about KMail in KDE4, but KDE3 KMail does
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:14:20 +0300
David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il wrote:
Hello David,
Or is there some header or marker I should be hitting as well?
Reference and/or Reply-To headers. The digest, depending on /exactly/
how it as constructed and /exactly/ how you reply, won't necessarily
carry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/30/2014 04:42 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:14:20 +0300 David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il
wrote:
Hello David,
Or is there some header or marker I should be hitting as well?
Reference and/or Reply-To headers.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:26:04 -0400
The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Hello The,
(References: and In-Reply-To:, surely?)
You are, of course, right. My brain was waaay ahead of my fingers at
the time. My apologies for any confusion caused.
--
Regards _
/ ) The
On Wednesday 30 July 2014 08:14:20 David Baron wrote:
I do not understand the difference. If I hit reply, so I get the title of
the digest which I replace with the desired re: Should not this be OK.
No. It gives rise to a new thread, with the digest data, which is not the
same as the
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 19:01:16 +0300, David Baron wrote:
'exim -bt address' might help.
~$ sudo exim4 -bt system_notification
R: system_aliases for system_notificat...@dovidhalevi.homelinux.net
R: userforward for system_notificat...@dovidhalevi.homelinux.net
R: procmail for
On Tuesday 29 July 2014 16:23:21 debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org
wrote:
system_notification is qualified by the mailname, dovidhalevi.homelinux.net.
dovidhalevi.homelinux.net is regarded as a local domain. The mail is routed
and transported by procmail.
Sure looks in order.
On Tue 29 Jul 2014 at 21:44:36 +0300, David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 29 July 2014 16:23:21 debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org
wrote:
system_notification is qualified by the mailname, dovidhalevi.homelinux.net.
dovidhalevi.homelinux.net is regarded as a local domain. The mail is
On Tuesday 29 July 2014 20:09:41 Brian wrote:
When you reply threading is broken. Surely you can see that. Could be
kmail of course.
Replying from the digest breaks threads. I eschew KDE 4, so I don't know
about KMail in KDE4, but KDE3 KMail does not break threads.
Lisi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Sunday 27 July 2014 23:45:44 debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org
wrote:
/etc/mailname
localhost.localdomain
This is the first answer on the reconfig, probably should not be this?
This is not ok. Exim uses what is in /etc/mailname to qualify an address
without a
On 2014-07-28, David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il wrote:
Now, if I simply send to a user, the mail will be delivered.
If I simply send to root, it gets correctly aliased over to
system_notifications, but then gets returned!
I don't know what aliased over to system notifications means, but the
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 10:34:04 +0300, David Baron wrote:
On Sunday 27 July 2014 23:45:44 debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org
wrote:
/etc/mailname
localhost.localdomain
This is the first answer on the reconfig, probably should not be this?
This is not ok.
On Monday 28 July 2014 15:21:36 debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org
wrote:
Now, if I simply send to a user, the mail will be delivered.
If I simply send to root, it gets correctly aliased over to
system_notifications, but then gets returned!
So original problem remains !?!
to (I used a 3G network), or
(b) set /etc/hosts on the exim machine to point xxx.homelinux.net to
itself so that exim made no attempt to signal externally.
You may already have checked this, but this just seems to me to have a
sense of being a routing problem, rather than an mailserver problem
or, if there is no MX record, whatever machine is reached on port 25
at the IP address pointed to by
dovidhalevi.homelinux.net ?
I am not sure I understand the question. In any event, this routing is meant
for internal mail only.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
Cannot send mail to user@localhost.localdomain. Fully formed address will
work.
Applications such as rkhunter and cron-apt that send mail to root--mail is not
received. There is a system_notification user and root is aliased to this.
Explicit send to root using mail fails regardless of whether
On Sun 27 Jul 2014 at 14:06:21 +0300, David Baron wrote:
Cannot send mail to user@localhost.localdomain. Fully formed address will
work.
What is a Fully formed address? Please post here the contents of
/etc/exim4/update-exim4.conf.conf
/etc/hosts
/etc/mailname
Applications such as
Cannot send mail to user@localhost.localdomain. Fully formed address will
work.
What is a Fully formed address? Please post here the contents of
Something with real name@hostname.domainname rather than
localhost.localdomain.
/etc/exim4/update-exim4.conf.conf
On Sun 27 Jul 2014 at 17:34:54 +0300, David Baron wrote:
#dc_eximconfig_configtype='internet'
dc_eximconfig_configtype='smarthost'
dc_other_hostnames='dovidhalevi.homelinux.net'
dc_local_interfaces=''
#dc_readhost='d_baron'
dc_readhost='dovidhalevi.homelinux.net'
dc_relay_domains=''
Hi all,
I have an XCP host based on Debian, that contains a number of virtual
machines for my internal network. A basic diagram of my network is here:
https://www.gently.org.uk/gently-network.jpeg
The 'gateway' vm is the only thing connected directly to the cable modem.
eth0 receives its IP
isc-dhcp-client.
Ok, but is there a functional DHCP _server_ on your LAN?
Yes. This laptop installation worked fine until a couple of weeks
ago.
Wireless is now working again after reinstalling netwotk-manager-gnome.
Wireless routing is broken again. It appears that connecting
Paul Scott a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 08:36:04PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
route gives me:
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse
Iface
default * 0.0.0.0 U 1002 00 eth0
You have a bogus default route
/interfaces?
It is disabled there now.
Interestly I just booted Linux to find wireless not routing to the Internet.
I then booted to Windows. When I booted back to Linux wireless routing
was working correctly.
Paul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
Paul Scott a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:28:41AM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
As a workaround until an update fixes the bug, I guess you can manually
disable the wired ethernet interface in NetworkManager when you don't
use it.
Do mean in /etc/network/interfaces?
No. I wrote in
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:09:48PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Paul Scott a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:28:41AM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
As a workaround until an update fixes the bug, I guess you can manually
disable the wired ethernet interface in NetworkManager when you
Hi All,
I have a sid system on this laptop that I keep updated. A week or two
ago an update broke my ability to connect to the Internet through wireless
access points. I am now connected wirelessly to my server with ssh
and can access the Internet.
route gives me:
Destination Gateway
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:04:16 -0700
Paul Scott waterho...@ultrasw.com wrote:
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric
RefUse Iface default * 0.0.0.0
U 1002 00 eth0 default 192.168.0.1
0.0.0.0 UG1024 00
Le 22/07/2014 14:30, B a écrit :
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:04:16 -0700
Paul Scott waterho...@ultrasw.com wrote:
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric
RefUse Iface default * 0.0.0.0
U 1002 00 eth0 default 192.168.0.1
Paul Scott a écrit :
I have a sid system on this laptop that I keep updated. A week or two
ago an update broke my ability to connect to the Internet through wireless
access points. I am now connected wirelessly to my server with ssh
and can access the Internet.
route gives me:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 08:30:19PM +0200, B wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:04:16 -0700
Paul Scott waterho...@ultrasw.com wrote:
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric
RefUse Iface default * 0.0.0.0
U 1002 00 eth0 default
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 08:36:04PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Paul Scott a écrit :
I have a sid system on this laptop that I keep updated. A week or two
ago an update broke my ability to connect to the Internet through wireless
access points. I am now connected wirelessly to my
1 - 100 of 1475 matches
Mail list logo
