Linux-Misc Digest #916, Volume #24 Sat, 24 Jun 00 13:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: StarOffice 5.2 :-( ("G Pollack")
Re: Weird email to FETCHMAIL-DAEMON (long) (Rod Smith)
Re: Can't mount cdrom (Robert Hampf)
Re: GNU/LINUX at city of Boston Public Library departments (Bob)
Re: GNU/LINUX at city of Boston Public Library departments (Floyd Davidson)
Re: GNU/LINUX at city of Boston Public Library departments (Bill Horne)
Re: linux as a client :-( (Vilmos Soti)
Re: StarOffice 5.2 :-( (Thomas Zajic)
Re: How to speed up Netscape under Linux? (Bob Hill)
Re: telnet (Vilmos Soti)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "G Pollack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: StarOffice 5.2 :-(
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:17:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rafael
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hej! I was waiting for new version of StarOffice with big hope that I
> can use Latin2 True Type fonts (easter Europe). But Sun disapoited me, I
> still can not use Notional True Type fonts. I have still use Windows as
> a my primary computer, becouse the problem with national fonts.
>
>
> Rafael
>
I was waiting for 5.2 hoping for an improvement in performance. Instead,
it's much slower than 5.1, so much so that I find it unusable on my
light weight system (P5 166, 64 MB).
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
Subject: Re: Weird email to FETCHMAIL-DAEMON (long)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:31:31 GMT
[Posted and mailed]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Here is a general overview of how I am set up.
>
> I have sendmail configured to send outgoing mail to my DSL provider.
> The mail server I use is called smtpout.bellatlantic.net.
>
> I have 4 different POP3 mail accounts that I check with fetchmail.
> One of them is my account with BA. The other three are with my ISP who
> hosts my david-steuber.com domain. I pick up mail that is addressed
> to david-steuber.com from a server called email.steuber.com.
>
> I use a typical setup in ~/.fetchmailrc to poll the POP3 servers. For
> all four accounts, the rule is that the mail in the POP3 account goes
> to `david' here.
Sounds reasonable enough so far.
> The headers make me believe that fetchmail is bouncing messages using
> FETCHMAIL-DEAMON.david-steuber.com in the From header.
I assume you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED], since that's what
I see in the messages.
One thing that might help is to examine what happens when your systems
(both the ISP that hosts your david-steuber.com domain and your local
system) receives e-mail addressed to FETCHMAIL-DAEMON. I was getting
messages double-bounced to root because FETCHMAIL-DAEMON was a
non-existant user on my system at one time. I've now got Fetchmail
configured to re-write outgoing headers so that the username
FETCHMAIL-DAEMON doesn't appear in my outgoing mail; it's rewritten to
postmaster. Alternatively, you could create an account called
FETCHMAIL-DAEMON and monitor its incoming messages.
> I am not using
> procmail or any other filters that I am aware of.
...
> I am assuming fetchmail is the culprit because of the headers. I
> suppose it could be sendmail, but then why would
> FETCHMAIL-DAEMON.david-steuber.com appear in the From header?
If Sendmail refuses to accept a message (say because it thinks the
message is a relay), then Fetchmail will return the message to the
sender via whatever route it's configured to use, using the
FETCHMAIL-DAEMON account. This can get quite confusing. Fetchmail's
error messages aren't always very informative. For instance, I've got
some anti-spam measures on my Postfix configuration (the equivalent of
Sendmail in your setup). If Postfix spots certain key words or phrases,
it bounces the mail. On the return mail seen by the recipient, the claim
is that the message was too long. I now suspect that something like this
is happening with you, but I don't know precisely what the cause is.
> Normally, I have no problem with SMTP rfc-822 headers. But this is an
> exceptional case. The Received headers are not in the normal order of
> relayed mail. The spamfilter that BA uses (I'm assuming it is them)
> to bounce back the mail that fetchmail apparantly forwards does not
> include the body of the message. Heck, the mail I get is such a
> complete mess that I couldn't figure out what was going on. That is
> why I decided to post, in the hopes that someone more familiar with
> fetchmail could tell me what is up.
The reference to spam is:
Our spam filter rejected this transaction.
On my system:
$ strings /usr/bin/fetchmail | grep "Our spam filter"
Our spam filter rejected this transaction.
So I think it is Fetchmail that's generating the spam message. I can
think of four possibilities:
1) There's some poorly-documented anti-spam feature of Fetchmail
of which you've run afoul;
2) You've set some anti-spam measure in Fetchmail and aren't aware
of the fact;
3) Fetchmail or Sendmail is rejecting the message for some non-spam
reason, but Fetchmail is mistakenly including the spam message;
4) There's a bug in Fetchmail that's causing it to reject messages
and claim that they're spam.
My hunch is that, from the Fetchmail rejection, the mail is getting
bounced around several times because of the fact that two protocols (POP
and SMTP), several mail servers, a (presumably) bogus FETCHMAIL-DAEMON
address, and a bogus localhost.localdomain hostname are all involved,
leading to the tangled mess you've got that looks like old BASIC
"spaghetti code" look clear.
If I had to wager, I'd say that #3 above is correct. I can't say I know
why the message is being rejected, but I suspect that's it. I gather
that this problem occurs with only some messages. Is that correct? Have
you been able to isolate specific cases that cause the problem, such as
e-mail from specific domains? If you can reproduce it at will, I'd say
you might want to try using an experimental approach to isolate the
problem by simplifying your configuration, increasing debugging output,
and changing key aspects of the original message until you can track it
down.
> I also find it odd that the spamfilter that BA uses bounces the mail
> to email.steuber.com instead of mailn.bellatlantic.net.
I don't think it's BA that's bouncing the mail. It looks to me like BA
only gets involved when your local Fetchmail bounces the mail (itself or
because your local Sendmail bounces the mail). After all, the mail was
addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is your non-BA ISP. That
mail gets fetched by Fetchmail and doesn't touch BA's mail server (just
BA's DSL network). Only after something on your system bounces the mail
does BA's mail server see it, and by that time the bounce has corrupted
the address -- the message that identifies the mail as spam bears a "To"
address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] BA therefore bounces that
message, apparently back to your non-BA ISP, then back through
Fetchmail, which at least accepts the bounce.
> I should be
> picking up the bounces from a different account. Perhaps this is a BA
> issue. Or perhaps it is because BA sees the From header as being from
> the david-steuber.com domain and that is why it sends the mail there.
Again, although I'm ready to cast lots of blame on BA for many things
(they're my *FORMER* ISP ;-) ), I think they're blameless in this one.
> All this tells me that fetchmail is the problem. If fetchmail is not
> the problem, then I am extremely confused. I've used fetchmail for
> several revisions now without changing my ~/.fetchmailrc file.
> Perhaps there is some new control word I need to add or something?
>
> # Configuration created Thu Dec 17 19:29:08 1998 by fetchmailconf
> set logfile "/home/david/.fetchmail.log"
> set postmaster "david"
>
> poll email.steuber.com with proto POP3 and options no dns timeout 30
> user "user" there with password "password" is david here
> options no rewrite
Have you tried the "set no bouncemail" option? That should direct errors
to the local postmaster rather than the sender, which should at least
simplify the headers. You might also want to check the Fetchmail
documentation with respect to anti-spam measures. I've not yet studied
it very closely, but there is an option that affects what sorts of MTA
error messages it interprets as spam blocks. If Sendmail is rejecting
the message for some reason that Fetchmail is mis-interpreting as a spam
block, you can at least use these Fetchmail options to eliminate the
misleading spam message.
> ' > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> ' > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ' >
> ' > ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> ' > 550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Host unknown (Name server:
>localhost.localdomain: host not found)
> '
> ' Some system, somewhere along the line has tried to send e-mail to
> ' [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is invalid. From later entries, I
> ' suspect this was a spam filter called in conjunction with Fetchmail, but
> ' I'm not positive of this.
>
> My belief is that fetchmail tried to send the message.
I concur.
> ' > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ' > Received: from localhost (david@localhost [127.0.0.1])
> ' > by solo.david-steuber.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA12429
> ' > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:22:01 -0400
> ' > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:22:01 -0400
> ' > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ' > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> '
> ' OK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] has tried to send e-mail to
> ' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clearly this is bogus.
>
> Yes. My question is why is FETCHMAIL-DAEMON doing this? I have no
> such user, so I am assuming that fetchmail uses this name.
Yes, Fetchmail uses FETCHMAIL-DAEMON on all its bounces. I've seen this
on my system.
> ' > Received: from smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135] by email.steuber.com with
>ESMTP
> ' > (SMTPD32-6.00) id A612AE501DE; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:22:58 -0400
> ' > Received: (from daemon@localhost)
> ' > by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12126
> ' > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:23:10 -0700 (MST)
> ' > Received: from ip-54-007.scf.primenet.com(206.132.54.7)
> ' > via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAtbayLx; Wed Jun 21 12:23:00 2000
> ' > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:29:41 -0700 (MST)
> ' > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ' > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> '
> ' This last line is presumably the cause of all the trouble. Something
> ' (presumably the spam filter) picked up on the Sender address, which is
> ' bogus, rather than the valid From address, and tried to bounce the mail
> ' back to the sender.
...
> This mail was not from a spammer, but from someone useing a forged
> address to respond to a usenet post I made.
Is it possible that Sendmail is refusing the message because of the
bogus Sender: line? If Sendmail bounced the message for this reason and
Fetchmail interpreted this as an anti-spam measure, everything else
would fall into place. Reconfigure Sendmail to accept mail from bogus
Sender: addresses and all the problems will go away. Unfortunately, I
can't offer any advice on this, since I find Sendmail configuration to
be 50% voodoo, which is why I use Postfix. You might want to dig into
your Sendmail configuration, or if you've been considering replacing it
for other reasons, do so and see what happens.
--
Rod Smith, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux networking & multi-OS configuration
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Hampf)
Subject: Re: Can't mount cdrom
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:30:29 +0300
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> h�lt �essu fram:
:
: Robert Hampf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: : Have you tried not to use modules? To compile everything into the
: : kernel. It makes things a lot simplier.
:
: No it doesn't. How can making your choices at compile time be simpler
: than making your choices at run time?
Because you don't need to mess with them (remeber to compile them,
have the right versions in the right locations and so on). For
somebody who doesn't know what he is doing it's a good thing to have
fewer things to remember.
rh
------------------------------
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: ne.internet.services
Subject: Re: GNU/LINUX at city of Boston Public Library departments
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:35:16 -0400
On 23 Jun 2000 17:09:44 -0800, Floyd Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But anyone who thinks Microsoft is as good as it gets when
>it comes to software tools, is missing just as much.
I never said that Word was "the" answer to publishing.
Clearly, it is not the *best* tool. However, it is the
best tool for the job for 99% of the users in the world.
>I would rather get the best results.
I'd rather get the job done. "Best"results are something
only academics have time to produce.
<>
>I won't even grant that packages like Word are easier to learn up
>to the the point of actually producing a printed page with
>something readable on it with default formatting. And that level
>of understanding is barely more than worthless.
Not true. It is much easier to learn to produce reasonable
documents with Word.
> They are
>equally difficult from that point up to the "master" level.
Could be true.
>Actually, I don't think most users of WYSIWYG word processing
>ever get past the mediocre level.
True. However, mediocre gets the job done most of the time.
Bob
------------------------------
From: Floyd Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: ne.internet.services
Subject: Re: GNU/LINUX at city of Boston Public Library departments
Date: 24 Jun 2000 07:59:10 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robie Basak) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 02:07:37 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Robie Basak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Isn't it nice how there's one standard interface for installing a
>>> package, through which you can easily check which files were installed
>>> where, read any additional install scripts and quickly verify that all
>>> installed files are still present and undamaged?
>>
>>We don't want no steenkin "standard interface".
>>Linux is all about choice. You can CHOOSE the one that suits YOU.
>>(Try that in M$ world)
>
>There _are_ choices - there are a variety of package formats, rpm and
>deb being the main ones. However, for your chosen distribution there
>is one standard package.
And other "standard" packages work just fine too.
However, part of choosing a distribution, for many, is greatly
influenced by the particular package manager. That is not
unreasonable, nor is having that variety to choose from.
It is also true that for old-time unix weenies these
"distributions" and their package managers are a passing
convenience to help get a system up and running to the point
where it can be configured _properly_ (which each and every said
unix weenie defines differently from every other unix weenie).
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:44:17 -0400
From: Bill Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: ne.internet.services
Subject: Re: GNU/LINUX at city of Boston Public Library departments
Floyd Davidson wrote:
> Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 23 Jun 2000 11:54:42 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> It's replacing a deficit in mentality that I don't lack.
> >
> >It's not a question of mentality. It's a question of getting the
> >job done. Using a word processor isn't my job: It's a tool I use
> >to get my job done. A WYSIWYG tool is much faster to learn and
> >use for 99% of the people in the world... at all levels of
> >"intelligence". But don't take my word for it. Go out and take a
> >look at what people run on their desktops. It ain't Unix/Linux
> >and vi, that's for sure.
>
> That last bit is true, but that is a mixture of history and
> marketing. Anyone who says Microsoft is not as good as it
> gets when it comes to _marketing_ is missing something.
>
> But anyone who thinks Microsoft is as good as it gets when
> it comes to software tools, is missing just as much.
>
> You have confused the two.
>
> >>Isn't that easier than floundering around looking
> >>for menus and shortcuts?
> >
> >Yes, I'd much rather flounder around with an archaic text editor
> >and a formatting language that's ancient history.
>
> I would rather get the best results. It is not any easier to
> learn one or the other to a level of significant competency. I
> won't even grant that packages like Word are easier to learn up
> to the the point of actually producing a printed page with
> something readable on it with default formatting. And that level
> of understanding is barely more than worthless. They are
> equally difficult from that point up to the "master" level. And
> when it comes to *really* knowing how to generate virtually
> anything you want, the text editor/typesetting software wins
> hands down (if for no other reason, just because you *can't*
> learn how to do what a WYSIWYG can't do).
>
> Actually, I don't think most users of WYSIWYG word processing
> ever get past the mediocre level. What percentage use anything
> that is not a default "style" or available via a GUI button?
> My bet is the percentages for TeX/LaTeX users is *far* higher.
> (Obviously, with TeX it necessarily is higher. :-)
>
> Floyd
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
I predict that Linotype(r) will make a comeback: in a few years, the
captains of industry and the 'droids in the IS departments will have an
attack of common sense, and will realize that point-'n-drool interfaces
have, IMNSHO, hastened the general decline of American education and
discourse.
Slick, glossy, gooey sales brochures and lugubrious obituaries always
have something in common: no matter how colorful the praise for the
recently departed or how clever the praise for the recently arrived,
anyone seeing them knows the whole story lies elsewhere. In times gone
by, that whole story could be had by anyone willing to look: in the
newspaper morgue or the alumni records or perhaps even the Court
archives, the truth was out there for the later case and could be
obtained by asking careful questions in the former.
No longer. Office memoranda, company reports, forecasts, and even this
email share a common weakness: they are limited not so much by the
bandwidth which transports them as by the time of those that create
them. The truth is longer available: it has been buried in a morass of
hype, glitz, and promotion that has exacted the price of its preparation
from our corporate bottom lines. It is, to twist the metaphor, a
"zero-sum" game: the more time spent on formatting, the less on
foresight; the more on style, the less on substance.
This thread has not addressed the real issue: instead of debating what
is the easist way to make things LOOK GOOD, our time would be better
spent thinking of ways to ACCOMPLISH MORE. Beyond obvious concerns about
ease of use and training, I do not care what tool I use to prepare my
presentations: I care about getting the facts straight, the numbers
accurate, and the point across.
In other words, the more time we waste on *setting* margins, the less we
have to improve our *profit* margins.
Bill "What You See Is All You Get" Horne
(Remove ".nouce" from address for direct replies.)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: linux as a client :-(
From: Vilmos Soti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:58:46 GMT
Edward Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1. Are there any plans for making software just as easy to install
>> as in Windows? RPM and DEB packages are a start, but these seem
>> to be distribution specific. I long for the day when all software
>> and drivers will be as simple as double-clicking on setup.exe
>
> Blame RH for properiety extensions.
Would you elaborate more on this? What info do you have about it?
[vilmos@ppro tty4 backup]$ rpm -qi rpm
[...]
Size : 2914363 License: GPL
Packager : Red Hat Software <http://developer.redhat.com/bugzilla>
Summary : The Red Hat package management system.
Look at what the License says.
Excerpt from Maximum RPM, first edition, page xx:
... Put under the terms of GNU General Public License (meaning:
RPM cannot be made proprietary by anyone, not even Bill Gates) ...
So, where is it proprietary? It is used by Caldera, TurboLinux,
Connectiva, SuSE, etc. So, where is it proprietary? What are the
proprietary extensions you talk about?
Vilmos
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Zajic)
Subject: Re: StarOffice 5.2 :-(
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Zajic)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:53:33 GMT
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:17:57 GMT, G Pollack wrote:
> I was waiting for 5.2 hoping for an improvement in performance.
> Instead, it's much slower than 5.1, so much so that I find it
> unusable on my light weight system (P5 166, 64 MB).
Ah, that's good to know - in this case, I'll probably try a side-by-side
install first instead of blindly replacing my 5.1a install (P166 non-MMX,
80 MB, only 64 MB of it cached - thanks, Intel!).
Any noticeable improvements that would justify the slower operation in
daily usage (spreadsheets to keep track of my account and my working
hours, a letter every now and then, plus the occasional .PPT that some
people think is better for pictures than a plain .GIF/.JPG ;-)?
Anyway, thanks for the hint!
Thomas
--
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- Thomas "ZlatkO" Zajic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux-2.2.16/slrn-0.9.6.2+ -
- "It is not easy to cut through a human head with a hacksaw." (M. C.) -
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------------------------
From: Bob Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How to speed up Netscape under Linux?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:02:19 -0500
In my case I find that Netscape for Linux is about twice as fast as Windoze
and Netscape.
I did however increase my cache sizes to 10 meg each.
alan wrote:
> I would really love to know, how can I (simply) make Netscape/the net run
> faster. I am only getting about a third of the speed I can get from
> Windows!!
> Thanks,
> Alan
>
> --
> Posted via CNET Help.com
> http://www.help.com/
--
Bob
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Remove the NOSPAM for my correct address)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: telnet
From: Vilmos Soti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:00:44 GMT
> i can;t telnet into my linux box, it says connection refused by host.
> form windows machine it says connection lost
> I have checked the inetd.conf file, it is ok
> what is the problem?
> thanks in advance
Do you have a telnet server installed? Which distribution?
Vilmos
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
