Linux-Misc Digest #61, Volume #27 Thu, 8 Feb 01 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux not free anymore? (Steve Ackman)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
pop3 issues ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which is the linux for me? (Michael Heiming)
test ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
How to mount a Sony Digital Still Camera w/ USB as a filesystem??
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
How to mount a Sony Digital Still Camera w/ USB as a filesystem??
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
How to mount a Sony Digital Still Camera w/ USB as a filesystem??
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to mount a Sony Digital Still Camera w/ USB as a filesystem?? (Chris Webster)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Johan Kullstam)
no sr-mod on system (Ming He)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
KDE vs FVWM - a quick question (Nick)
procmail problem under Linux (* Tong *)
Re: Cloning Linux Drives (* Tong *)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: uncompress: corrupt input (Ate Faber)
Re: procmail problem under Linux (Michael Heiming)
Re: Which distribution? ("J.R. Tietsort")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: RH 7.1 beta, USB tape drive and software ("John Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Ackman)
Subject: Re: Linux not free anymore?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:27:56 -0500
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:15:35 +1100, Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Ackman wrote:
>...
>> What Libertarian, or libertarian, ever managed to
>> screw up as badly as authoritarian governments?
>
>False dichotomy. A philosophical libertarian can run
>an authoritarian government: all they need is the Police,
>the Courts, and/or the Armed Forces, the very three instruments
>of coercion that you stated are acceptable to libertarians as
>roles for the government.
Then you don't know what a libertarian is.
Authoritarianism is anti-libertarian.
>Take away the Police, the Judiciary, and the Military, from the
>government, and it won't have any power to do harm.
Nor will it have any power to protect rights, which is
the point in the first place.
>The truth is, self-proclaimed "libertarians" are classic conservatives:
>they believe in coercion to enforce taxation of the poor to subsidise
>the rich. Example: Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax.
Again, you have no idea what a libertarian is.
Coercive taxation is anti-libertarian.
>In Australia, we've trusted the airlines to manage their own
>affairs in a deregulated environment. Result: they are
>skimping on maintenance.
The point? Regulated airlines in the US also skimp on
maintenance.
>> Are those air traffic controllers regulated?
>> Of course they are!
>
>So you agree that they need to be regulated.
Do I?
>> The difference is
>> that the air traffic control system in Canada is run
>> by people who have a vested interest in performing
>> efficiently. Government programs NEVER have that
>> kind of incentive.
>
>They could have. Employees of the govt could be paid
>bonuses/penalties, and/or be given shares.
Nope. The government even manages to screw up
"incentive awards." I've been a US Federal Employee.
>If you want a perfectly just system of taxation, be prepared
>for a mountain of paperwork to document exactly what you do use,
>when, and how much.
Excise fees and import duties put no burden on the end user,
and are, in a sense, voluntary in that only people who prefer
imported goods pay them.
>> Regulations are the implementation of problems
>> not forseen by the regulators. Forest fires started
>> by the federal government when they ignore their own
>> regulations about when and where to burn, for instance.
>
>That proves that the regulations are good. So are we to
>deduce that the Legislature is good, but the Executive is bad?
No, it proves that when government "owns" land, the
caretakers have no vested interest and are much more willing
to take chances. After all, they have nothing to lose.
If that land had been privately owned, do you think the
owner would have taken a chance on burning off millions of
dollars worth of lumber?
>But i momentarily forgot: libertarians only believe in
>regulation of the poor. "Give me your poor, your hungry,
>your destitute millions, and Uncle Sam shall lock them up."
Again, you display an amazing ignorance of what a
philosophical libertarian believes.
>> Bad regulation NEVER goes away. Each year there are
>> between 45,000 and 100,000 new pages added to the Federal
>> Register. We still pay the communications tax that was
>> passed as a temporary measure to fund the Spanish American
>> War!
>
>Of course, and when libertarians remove regulations, they always
>continue the ones that are hurdles to the average Joe. The only
>regulations they delete are those that affect big corporations.
How would you know? We've not had a libertarian government
in well over a century.
>> Yes, that would be anarchy. I thought we were
>> talking about legitimate functions of gov't vs.
>> tyranny.
>
>How can the people be free, when government has the
>power of coercion?
How can the government protect anyone's rights without it?
>It also fell short of the Athenian reality of direct
>government, and still falls short of direct election
>which many other countries properly implement.
We have direct election. Those are the Representatives of
the people... and unfortunately, we also have direct election
of the Senate. As to the President... he was meant to be
little more than a figurehead anyway. The "average" between
the States electing him and the people electing him is as
good a method as any.
>> In modern times, "democracy", at its very nature, declares
>> that the few are able to dictate to the many... and it's all
>> done in the name of "serving the greater good."
>
>By allowing government the power of coercion, through the Police,
>the Courts, and the Military, libertarians ensure the continuation
>of that dictatorship.
There are no libertarians in power. How is it that they
"allow" these things?
--
Steve Ackman
http://twovoyagers.com
Registered Linux User #79430
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 8 Feb 2001 21:41:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: A religeous person does not need to explain the origin of God (and he
: will freely admit that he can't).
This whole line of arguing was originally coined ages ago NOT as its
own proof that atheism is correct, but merely as a counterproof to
the theists' proof that God is necessary as a first cause of the
universe. The point is that adding God to the picture doesn't really
explain anything at all as to why there exists a universe. And if
you would say that God+Universe is a better explanation than just
Universe by itself, then why not posit a metagod that created God?
Why not a Metametagod that created that one, and so on? Wouldn't
the Metametagod explaination, by the same reasoning, be better
than just the God explanation? In summary: You don't solve
the first cause problem by introducing an infinite recursion of
causes. That's why the proof that God must exist because the
Universe needs a cause is bogus. This argument, by itself, does
not prove that god doesn't exist, its purpose is merely to shoot
down to the theists's first cause argument, and show how that
isn't a good enough reason by itself to convince anyone.
I have no idea why the Universe exists. The only difference
between myself and theists in that regard is that I have the
guts to admit it to myself.
: replacing the term "God" with "Universe" (I noticed you even write it
: with a capital) which, more than anything else, would typecast you as
: a religeous person.
Not necessarily. Since your domain is .au, I assume English is your
first langauge? In English, as you should know, capital letters
are often used to indicate that you are talking about something
famous and unique. For example, "The White House" has a very
different connotation than "the white house". The first is most
likely referring to the famous US Presidential mansion, while the
second might be referring to some generic house that is white. In
this regard, "Universe" refers to the one-and-only well known
famous universe in which we live, while "universe" could refer to
an imaginary universe depicted in a series of novels, or perhaps
one universe of many in a theory of many alternate universes.
Capital letters do not have to imply that the writer thinks the
object is worthy of worship or to be deified.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: pop3 issues
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:43:57 GMT
If someone could give me some insight into the following,
it would be
greatly appreciated.
I am running RH7.0, and whenever I connect to download my mail, if
there is anything in my spool with an attachment over 100k, my mail
client(outlook) just hangs there saying it's downloading the message. I
have tried installing qpopper and cucipop on my mail server, but
whichever
one I use, I keep having the same problem.
Smaller messages containing only text come through just fine. Ive
been working on this all day and I've lost more than a few hairs over
it.......any suggestions?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:32:41 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which is the linux for me?
webqueen, queen of the web wrote:
> hi..
>
> I just finished a new 1Ghz Athalon system with RAID (ATA KT7A). I want
> to choose a linux build in which I can configure in PHP, Secure/Regular
> Apache Server, SSLEAY, MySQL at build time without having to add them
> later from an RPM or tarball. (If that's possible from RH7 I couldn't
> figure out how to do it- from what I can tell on their site they are
> only directly available with commercial releases)..
>
> I'm doing hardware RAID so that's proably not a major concern.
>
> 2.4 kernal would be nice too but from what I've read only one (was it
> mandrake?) build offers it so far. I've read pages like
> http://lwn.net/current/dists.php3
>
> but the information is pretty sketchy- most like "this is a good release
> for a business.." and that sort of advice.
>
> Any recommendations are appreciated..
>
> Hug!
> WQ
<SNIP>
Hello,
hope you got enough RAM and a descent NIC and you have a really fast uplink
and expect high traffic...:-)
You should take a look at the new SuSE 7.1 distro, which comes with 2.4
SSLeay is rather outdated openssl is used...
If you have all those great components or not at install doesn't really
matter,
it's always the best choice to build those components, including the kernel
compiled from a fresh tar ball, as most times the things that come on your
shinny new distro
are rather outdated, there are security issues, or you just want to make
things faster or
possible at all...
I would suggest reading the book that came with your RH or type man rpm, as
it can't
be that difficult on RH to install something?
Good luck
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:50:20 GMT
test
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to mount a Sony Digital Still Camera w/ USB as a filesystem??
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:03:53 GMT
Hello,
I have the a Sony Cyber-shot digital still camera
with a USB interface. Under Winbloze after the
adding of a USB driver the camera's memory appears
as a filesystem to the OS that you can decend into
and retrieve image files taken by the camera.
Has this been acheieved by anyone via Linux yet?
I have USB under kernel 2.4.1 but I am not sure
how to go about addressing the camera memory as a
filesystem.
Any input is appreciated!
-Jeff
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to mount a Sony Digital Still Camera w/ USB as a filesystem??
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:03:50 GMT
Hello,
I have the a Sony Cyber-shot digital still camera
with a USB interface. Under Winbloze after the
adding of a USB driver the camera's memory appears
as a filesystem to the OS that you can decend into
and retrieve image files taken by the camera.
Has this been acheieved by anyone via Linux yet?
I have USB under kernel 2.4.1 but I am not sure
how to go about addressing the camera memory as a
filesystem.
Any input is appreciated!
-Jeff
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to mount a Sony Digital Still Camera w/ USB as a filesystem??
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:05:48 GMT
Hello,
I have the a Sony Cyber-shot digital still camera
with a USB interface. Under Winbloze after the
adding of a USB driver the camera's memory appears
as a filesystem to the OS that you can decend into
and retrieve image files taken by the camera.
Has this been acheieved by anyone via Linux yet?
I have USB under kernel 2.4.1 but I am not sure
how to go about addressing the camera memory as a
filesystem.
Any input is appreciated!
-Jeff
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Chris Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to mount a Sony Digital Still Camera w/ USB as a filesystem??
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:21:52 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has this been acheieved by anyone via Linux yet?
> I have USB under kernel 2.4.1 but I am not sure
> how to go about addressing the camera memory as a
> filesystem.
I've just gotten a USB Jumpshot card reader to work....
Mounts as a SCSI device. If you have no SCSI devices, you should be
able to "mount -t msdos /dev/sda1 /mnt/blah", otherwise "/dev/sd?1".
You should be able to "cat /proc/bus/usb/devices" and see it, and you
should also be able to "cat /proc/scsi/scsi" and see it.
In kernel configuration you need USB, USB mass storage, appropriate
camera/device, SCSI & SCSI generic.
Check out www.linux-usb.org.
Hope something in there helps.
--Chris
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:26:20 GMT
Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >
> > Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > One simple question: If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the
> > > > Universe need one?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for budding in, but isn't that merely shifting the problem?
> >
> > no, it's *un*-shifting the problem.
> >
> See below for my reaction.
>
> > > Aren't you essentially turning the universe into a non-created
> > > entity?
> >
> > as something without a creator, sure.
> >
> OK. So where did it come from then?
i have no idea. it was already here when i became aware of anything.
however, invoking a creator doesn't help. immediately, one asks, who
made the creator? and so on. ok so you stop somewhere. maybe the
creator doesn't need to be created. fine. maybe the universe doesn't
need to created as such either. this doesn't mean god or gods or
whatever didn't create the universe, it just means that it's not
*necessary* to have them do so. you can have your creator. it's your
argument which i find bogus.
> > > And if not, could you explain - in a clear and non-ambiguous way (*) -
> > > how the universe came into being?
> >
> > only if you can explain -- in a clear and non-ambiguous way -- how god
> > came into being. invoking a creator of the universe adds complexity.
> >
> A religeous person does not need to explain the origin of God (and he
> will freely admit that he can't).
i don't see why the origin of the universe needs explaining. it
*wants* explaining, i mean, i'd sure like to know how it got here.
but nothing collapses just because we don't bother trying anymore than
god would fail to exist because we don't explain his beginning.
> It seems to me you are simply
> replacing the term "God" with "Universe" (I noticed you even write it
> with a capital)
maybe you should look again.
> which, more than anything else, would typecast you as
> a religeous person.
> > > (*) I can't help but noticing that the more cosmology advances, the
> > > more its publications begin to resemble Genesis (there should really
> > > be a smiley here, but then again...).
> >
> > only in a very superficial way.
> >
> Hmmm....
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Ming He <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: no sr-mod on system
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:27:17 GMT
I have redhat 6.2, kernel 2.2.14-5.0, unpatched.
[root@eye /etc]# insmod sr-mod
insmod: sr-mod: no module by that name found
Why this module is missing and how can I get it?
/ming
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:31:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walt writes:
>> The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
>> of God."
> Make that "_a_ dictionary definition": at best an approximation. I (an
> atheist) prefer this definition: "one who denies the existence of your
> imaginary friend while not claiming to have one of his own".
About half the dictionaries say "belief" the other half say "deny".
This one is interesting, note the name in the link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/glossary.htm
But this argument doesn't make sense to me.
How can you know, think, affirm or deny anything if you don't
believe anything?
"The Earth is positivly, absolutly not flat", implies that I have some
beliefs concerning the shape of the Earth.
Please give me one example of a subject that I deny a statement,
but don't have any belief associated with it.
I couldn't find any definitions explaining the difference between
"active" belief and "passive"?? belief.
>> That is definitely an active belief.
> "Does not believe" is not "believes not".
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: KDE vs FVWM - a quick question
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:27:27 +0000
I'm fairly new to this Linux game (6 months or so) and have settled on
SuSE Linux as my preferred distribution and KDE as my preferred GUI.
However, one thing KDE lacks that the other variations on FVWMx have, is
a X-Messages terminal screen. I find this very handy as when a program
fails to run, you can see at once what the problem is. Under KDE if a
program fails to run, I have to exit the GUI to see what the problem
was.
Can X-Messages (or something similar) be run under KDE? If so, how?
Many thanks in advance,
Nick
P.S. I'm struggling with Wine too, so I'll stick around here for a while
:)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: * Tong * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: procmail problem under Linux
Date: 08 Feb 2001 18:39:55 -0400
Hi,
I can't get my procmail going under my linux (RH6.2). The same
configuration works fine for Solaris. Here is the error message:
/home/tong/.forward: line 1: "|IFS=' '&&p=/usr/bin/procmail&&test -f $p&&exec $p
-Yf-||exit 75 #std"... User tong doesn't have a valid shell for mailing to programs
What does it mean?
Here are the info of my system:
$ ls -l /usr/bin/procmail
-rwsr-sr-x 1 root mail 76432 Feb 7 2000 /usr/bin/procmail
$ /usr/bin/procmail -v
procmail v3.14 1999/11/22, Copyright (c) 1999, Stephen R. van den Berg
$ head -2 ~/.procmailrc
SHELL = /bin/sh
PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin
$ ls -l /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Dec 15 23:42 /bin/sh -> bash
$ ls -l /bin/bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 316848 Feb 27 2000 /bin/bash
$ grep tong /etc/passwd
tong:x:9999:1001:Tong Sun:/home/tong:/usr/local/bin/bash
$ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1520199 Jan 9 20:48 /usr/local/bin/bash
$ cat ~/.forward
"|IFS=' '&&p=/usr/bin/procmail&&test -f $p&&exec $p -Yf-||exit 75 #std"
Everything seems perfect to me. how could I fix the problem, or
where should I look further into? thanks
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http://members.xoom.com/suntong001/
- All free contribution & collection & music from the heavens
------------------------------
From: * Tong * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cloning Linux Drives
Date: 08 Feb 2001 18:48:24 -0400
Malcolm Cowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Seems that Tong has assumed that you are copying mounted filesystems,
Ooops, I'm wrong. Sorry, Thanks Perter & Malcolm. I thought that I
know cp well enough, but apparently not enough.
Oh, I apologize! please forgive this newbie. :-)
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http://members.xoom.com/suntong001/
- All free contribution & collection & music from the heavens
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 8 Feb 2001 22:45:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Ian Davey wrote:
:>
:> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
:>
:> >A theism *IS* a belief....specifically a belief in the null postulate.
:>
:> This seems more the typical Christian expression of Atheism, trying to
:> position it as a belief system.
:> It means "without theism"
: You can choose to read it that way, but the grammatically correct
: parsing is: (a(the))ism). A system of thought (ism) in which the
: central hypothesis is an absence of God.
Why do you say that is the grammatically "correct" way to parse it?
Since when did English start having a clearly defined order of
operations in which prefixes and suffixes must be interpeted? Where's
the rule that says the a- is "closer" to the "the" than the "ism" is?
Face it, it's ill-defined. It's one of the many areas where English
grammar has two legal forms, and it is ambiguous which is correct.
:> in the same way that
:> amoral means "without morality".
: That's unambiguous because it has only two elements,
: "a" and "moral".
:> So you can argue semantics, and some may try
:> and turn Atheism into a belief system,
: It is. A test is this: ask an Atheist if they have room in their
: philosophy for any possibility except the absence of God.
Okay. I'll be that atheist. It's entirely possible that a
god might exist. Then again, it's also entirely possible
that leprechauns exist - after all they can't be disproven
either. I put god and leprechauns in the same category, with
regards to their likelyhood of existing: Technically they *could*
exist, but I have no reason to entertain the notion that they do
unless more evidence shows up that I don't currently know about.
:> especially Christians because they
:> like to paint it that way. It's not something you practice or follow though,
:> you don't actually need to do or believe anything to be an Atheist.
: Except for that one thing: denial of God.
Go take that Websters' dictionary where you found the atheism
definition, and go look up "deny" also. The way they use it,
it can mean *either* believe not or not believe.
: Stories are good, when they're good. For good reason, i feel a need
: for the stories of Socrates, and Jefferson, and Linus Torvalds.
Yes, and for the same reason I feel a need to the stories of
Robin Hood, King Aurthur, and so on. The difference is that
some good stories are fiction and some are non-fiction.
------------------------------
From: Ate Faber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: uncompress: corrupt input
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:56:09 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The file is on a Windows NT box, connected via samba.
The file has got corrupted probably because of a full disk with the command
tar tfZ newbwu.Z > files
If it is possible to get decompress pick up the file after the corruption.
Thanks,
Regards Ate
David Efflandt wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:13:25 +0100, Ate Faber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I get a problem with a compressed tar file
> >
> >Reading the file this error occurs
> >
> >insize:1032 posbits:78 inbuf:45 52 52 4F 52 (6)
> >uncompress: corrupt input
> >tar: Unexpected EOF on archive file
> >tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
> >
> >The file is corrupted. The corruption starts at 4 Mb of the beginning of
> >the file. The total size is 1500 Mb
> >
> >Is it possible to get decompress over the corruption and continue
> >decompressing. There will be a loss of data.
> >
> >Any suggestions?
>
> Did this file touch a Windows box? Did you download/upload in binary
> mode only (not ascii)?
>
> --
> David Efflandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.de-srv.com/
> http://www.autox.chicago.il.us/ http://www.berniesfloral.net/
> http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/ http://hammer.prohosting.com/~cgi-wiz/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:30:29 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: procmail problem under Linux
* Tong * wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't get my procmail going under my linux (RH6.2). The same
> configuration works fine for Solaris. Here is the error message:
>
> /home/tong/.forward: line 1: "|IFS=' '&&p=/usr/bin/procmail&&test -f $p&&exec $p
>-Yf-||exit 75 #std"... User tong doesn't have a valid shell for mailing to programs
>
> What does it mean?
>
> Here are the info of my system:
>
> $ ls -l /usr/bin/procmail
> -rwsr-sr-x 1 root mail 76432 Feb 7 2000 /usr/bin/procmail
>
> $ /usr/bin/procmail -v
> procmail v3.14 1999/11/22, Copyright (c) 1999, Stephen R. van den Berg
>
> $ head -2 ~/.procmailrc
> SHELL = /bin/sh
> PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin
>
> $ ls -l /bin/sh
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Dec 15 23:42 /bin/sh -> bash
>
> $ ls -l /bin/bash
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 316848 Feb 27 2000 /bin/bash
>
> $ grep tong /etc/passwd
> tong:x:9999:1001:Tong Sun:/home/tong:/usr/local/bin/bash
>
> $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1520199 Jan 9 20:48 /usr/local/bin/bash
>
> $ cat ~/.forward
> "|IFS=' '&&p=/usr/bin/procmail&&test -f $p&&exec $p -Yf-||exit 75 #std"
>
> Everything seems perfect to me. how could I fix the problem, or
> where should I look further into? thanks
>
> --
> Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
> http://members.xoom.com/suntong001/
> - All free contribution & collection & music from the heavens
Hello,
asuming sendmail is the default MTA on RH x.x you should find procmail
cat /etc/sendmail.cf |grep Mlocal
You don't need a .forward file, .procmailrc is enough,
otherwise try this .forward:
|"IFS=' '&&p=/usr/bin/procmail&&test -f $p&&exec $p -f-||exit 75#username"
Good luck
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
From: "J.R. Tietsort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which distribution?
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:21:54 -0700
You are asking this in a Linux newsgroup????
"Chaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Kbzg6.10783$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Could i use freebsd?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 8 Feb 2001 22:57:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The prefix "a-" for "not-" implies "anti-", not "without-"
False. Here's some examples:
apathetic - without pathos
apolitical - without politics
asymmetric - without symmetry
agnostic - without gnosis (knowlege)
atheism - without theism (belief in god)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
From: "John Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RH 7.1 beta, USB tape drive and software
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:36:39 GMT
What about "man tar"... ?
"Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a82df4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> I have a Compaq EP with RedHat 7.1 beta (2.4 kernel) and a Seagate USB
tape
> drive. The system does recognize theF reecom hub and drive (/dev/st0) and
> it shows up in the usbview utility. All I need is some software or
utility
> that can write to the drive. I've attempted to use taper and Amanda with
no
> success. Has anyone tried BRU with this compbination? I'll buy it if I
> need to. I just want to know if there's a simple 'cpio' script that I can
> use.
>
> BTW, the linux-usb (http://www.linux-usb.org) web site offers no help when
> trying to install usb tape drives. I find this odd since usb can be used
> with so many devices. oh well...
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.misc.
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
******************************
