Linux-Networking Digest #730, Volume #9 Fri, 1 Jan 99 01:13:31 EST
Contents:
Re: NOSPAM in addresses.. (jedi)
USR 56K PnP problems in RH 5.2, slow port? ("Tom Shealy")
Re: Routing grief... (Vincent Zweije)
Re: Basic ISDN PPP Routing Question? (Vincent Zweije)
Re: Fat 32??? ("JF")
3C589D in RH 5.2? ("Nick Payne")
Re: Do I need common files to upgrade Netscape Communicator? (Stuart R. Fuller)
Re: How to set speed on an EtherExpress Pro100+ on RedHat5.2 ?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
More 3c574 problems. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ip masq.....again (Jason Brossa)
Re: Ip masq.....again ("mct1")
IP masquerading problem ... Please Help! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NOSPAM in addresses.. (Michael Powe)
Re: ftponly ("Graham Miller")
Re: Gateway Woes ("Graham Miller")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: NOSPAM in addresses..
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:29:07 -0800
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 19:07:25 -0800, Dennis McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Normally I do, but occasionally they ask for a email response. It's a pain
>dealing with the anti-spamming addressing. What we need is to have a
>government with the balls enough to do something about it.
People who send out mail should just have a clue, or better
software, such that when they mail people (as opposed to posting
public messges) people can easily respond...
>
>
>>
>>Dont reply to people - reply to the NG. Most of the spammers dont seem
>>to be smart enough to remove NOSPAM. Regardless of what Mr. Yohe says.
>>My inbound spam is next to nothing with the altered return address.
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: "Tom Shealy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: USR 56K PnP problems in RH 5.2, slow port?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 22:53:45 -0800
I'm having trouble with my USR 56K PnP modem under RH 5.2 (it's not a
winmodem). When I start a connection (with any terminal...ezppp, minicom,
etc.) the modem dials and connects, but the connection is VERY slow. (It
takes several minutes for only 3 lines of text to appear!)
I have the modem in an isa slot. I have BIOS Version: 4S4EB2X0.86A.0009.P03
(from a new intel se440bx-2 motherboard), and "PNP OS" is off. I installed
isapnp and created an isapnp.conf file from the info given by pnpdump. I
suspect the problem is PnP related, but I was wondering if anyone had any
advice? I did a complete RedHat 5.2 install. Do I need any special
packages? Do I have to configure any port speeds or settings? Has anyone
had any similar experiences with a usr PnP modem?
The only thing I can think to do is disable the PnP features of the modem
with the jumper and configure it normally. But, before i do that, here's
what isapnp says:
# isapnp /etc/isapnp.conf
Board 1 has Identity 58 f7 b5 9a a9 70 30 72 56: USR3070 Serial No
4155873961 [checksum 58]
(I also see that at boot time)
Here's my /etc/isapnp.conf...(I made it from pnpdump, and just deleted all
but the first "multiple choices" :
/etc/isapnp.conf
# $Id: pnpdump.c,v 1.15a 1998/05/25 17:22:16 fox Exp $
# This is free software, see the sources for details.
# This software has NO WARRANTY, use at your OWN RISK
#
# For details of this file format, see isapnp.conf(5)
#
# For latest information on isapnp and pnpdump see:
# http://www.roestock.demon.co.uk/isapnptools/
#
# Compiler flags: -DREALTIME -DNEEDSETSCHEDULER
#
# Trying port address 0203
# Board 1 has serial identifier 58 f7 b5 9a a9 70 30 72 56
# (DEBUG)
(READPORT 0x0203)
(ISOLATE PRESERVE)
(IDENTIFY *)
# Card 1: (serial identifier 58 f7 b5 9a a9 70 30 72 56)
# Vendor Id USR3070, Serial Number 4155873961, checksum 0x58.
# Version 1.0, Vendor version 0.0
# ANSI string -->U.S. Robotics 56K Voice INT<--
#
# Logical device id USR3070
#
# Edit the entries below to uncomment out the configuration required.
# Note that only the first value of any range is given, this may be changed
if required
# Don't forget to uncomment the activate (ACT Y) when happy
(CONFIGURE USR3070/4155873961 (LD 0
# Multiple choice time, choose one only !
# Start dependent functions: priority preferred
# Fixed IO base address 0x02f8
# Number of IO addresses required: 8
# (IO 0 (BASE 0x02f8))
# IRQ 3.
# High true, edge sensitive interrupt (by default)
# (INT 0 (IRQ 3 (MODE +E)))
# End dependent functions
(ACT Y)
))
# End tag... Checksum 0x00 (OK)
# Returns all cards to the "Wait for Key" state
(WAITFORKEY)
any advice would be great....thanks!
-tom
------------------------------
From: Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Routing grief...
Date: 31 Dec 1998 13:07:12 +0100
In article <76boql$e1m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chem-Tel, Inc.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|| Cisco 2501 (x.x.116.189) --->Internet (Can't ping from any machine on
|| the network)
||
|| Linux Box NIC #1(x.x.116.190) ---> eth0 (Connected directly to the
|| router) Can NOT ping from anywhere
|| "" NIC #2(x.x.116.188) ---> eth1 (Connected to the LAN Hub)
|| Can ping from anywhere on network
||
|| I have issued these commands:
||
|| route add -net x.x.116.160 netmask 255.255.255.224 dev eth1
|| route add -host x.x.116.189 dev eth0
|| route add default gw x.x.116.189 dev eth0
|| ipfwadm -F -p accept
||
|| I have retrieved BRCFG and when attempted to run I get:
|| ioctl(SIOCGIFBR) failed :package not installed
||
|| I did not think it was a package (no *.rpm extension)
Huh? Don't know BRCFG. Guessing, SIOCGIFBR = S IOC G IF BR = socket
ioctl get interface broadcast.
|| What am I forgetting?
Proxy arp addresses .189 and .190 on eth1 of the linux box, or setting
up gatewayed host routes to these addresses on the LAN boxes, via .188.
Activating IP forwarding on the linux box.
echo 1 >/prox/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
Setting up routing on the LAN boxes:
ifconfig eth0 x.x.116.x netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast x.x.116.191
route add -net x.x.116.160 dev eth0
route add default gw x.x.116.188 # Or maybe via .189
Defining the broadcast address on the Linux box:
ifconfig eth1 x.x.116.188 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast x.x.116.191
Well, maybe you didn't forget it, but at least you forgot to say that
you didn't forget it.
Tata. Vincent.
--
Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "If you're flamed in a group you
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/> | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] | -- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
------------------------------
From: Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.dcom.isdn,comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: Basic ISDN PPP Routing Question?
Date: 31 Dec 1998 12:28:48 +0100
In article <76eenn$it4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
|| In the diagrams below ========= is 10baseT, ----/---- is ISDN and the
|| entire network is a class C network with 8 subnets (5 bits per). H1 is
|| the local host, R1 is the local router with an ISDN ppp interface and an
|| ethernet interface, R2 is the remote router with an ISDN ppp interface and
|| an ehternet interface.
||
|| .1 .2 .30 .31
|| [H1]============[R1]---------/----------[R2]-------------[H2]
||
|| In this setup how will R1 and R2 talk since they don't share a common
|| network? I would think I would have to set this up like this?
An ISDN link is a point to point link. The endpoints don't have to
be on the same network. However, addresses are normally assigned to
interfaces instead of hosts, so your next alternative may be better:
|| .1 .2 .30 .31 .65 .66
|| [H1]============[R1]---------/----------[R2]-------------[H2]
||
|| Is that correct or does PPP do something special like this? H2's gateway
|| would be .65 on R2 and R2's default gateway would be .30 on R1 so traffic
|| from H2 address to H1 would initiate the PPP call on R2 and vica-versa with
|| H1. If this is the case isn't this a big waste of IPs.
You may be able to use some tricks to save addresses. It may work to
have the same address on multiple interfaces. It may also be possible
to use reserved addresses for some interfaces. Reserved addresses are
not routed on internet, but reserved for local use. They are:
192.168.[0-255].*
172.[16-31].*.*
10.*.*.*
|| Or am I completely off base and something like this happens:
||
|| .1 .2 .3 .4
|| [H1]============[R1]---------/----------[R2]-------------[H2]
||
|| where a ppp connection is established R1 picks up packets addressed to R2
|| and forwards them to R2 and R2 picks up packets addressed to R1 and
|| forwards them to R1. What I am describing here sounds like a bridge?
I think this can be done using proxy arp. This makes R1 accept packets
for R2/H2 on its 10baseT network interface. An entire class C network
may be a bit too large to manage that way, though.
Good luck. Vincent.
--
Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "If you're flamed in a group you
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/> | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] | -- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
------------------------------
From: "JF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fat 32???
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 20:39:51 -0800
>
>The only problem that I have had with this so far is that windoze allows
>spaces in their long filenames. Linux doesn't seem to like this. I
>can't do something like 'cd Program Files'. Maybe there is a way around
>this?
>
Put single-quotes around the directory name to use it as a single parameter:
cd 'Program Files'
------------------------------
From: "Nick Payne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 3C589D in RH 5.2?
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:54:57 +1100
I'm new to Linux. I installed RedHat 5.2 on my notebook, which has a 3Com
3C589D PCMCIA NIC. The documentation on the CD indicates that the 3C589 is
supported, but the installation didn't find the NIC and when it presented me
with a list of the possible NICs, 3C589 was not among the 3Com NICs in the
list. Is my NIC supported? The Notebook is dual boot with Win95, and the NIC
works fine when running Windoze, so there doesn't appear to be a hardware
problem.
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart R. Fuller)
Subject: Re: Do I need common files to upgrade Netscape Communicator?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 05:00:02 GMT
Mitchell Maltenfort ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:
: I recently downloaded the Netscape Communicator rpm from RedHat's site but I
: didn't download the Common rpm. Do I need to have it to have the full
: upgrade?
The common .rpm file contains all the online help and the java classes. I'd
recommend installing the update to it, too.
Stu
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How to set speed on an EtherExpress Pro100+ on RedHat5.2 ?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:37:03 GMT
Unfortunately not. That was the first idea I had, and I couldn't find
anything, so I called Intel and they said there isn't anything, they
suggested it may just be a command line switch when loading the driver.
Kaushik
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JunkDTectr) wrote:
> I take it that you have a non-switching, auto-sense hub and the
> rest of your net is still 10BT.
>
> Is there a MSDOS setup program w/ the Pro100? It may provide the
> means for forcing 10BT.
>
> In article <76ei1e$led$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Hello, everyone! I have a Dell 4300 server at work which has a PCI
> > EtherExpress Pro100+ installed (not on-board). It is being seen fine
and
> > comes up (on the hub which has 10/100MBpS speed indicators) as 100MBpS.
> > However, we want it to come up at 10MBpS. I am assuming that the driver
> > defaults to the highest possible speed. How do I switch it down? Is there
> > any way at all? The technician at intel said that there might be a command
> > line switch for the driver, but how and where would I set it? The driver
> > loads straight from the kernel, not as a module. Please let me know, I am
> > eternally grateful to all.
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: More 3c574 problems.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:39:18 GMT
I see that there are many others having problems with the 3com 3c574 10/100
pcmcia card. Here's more of the same.
I am using the card on a Toshiba Tecra 8000, with Red Hat 5.2, 2.035 Kernel.
I am not sure what version of PCMCIA services it is. The problem is this:
ifconfig shows the card at the correct MAC address, so does klogd in the
syslog.
lsdev shows the card at the correct irq, but possibly the wrong I/O address.
It is listed at 0x300, whereas in Win98, it is at 0x1000, I beleive.
The card comes up, the 10MB light comes on, everything seems normal, but I
cannot pass traffic over the link. I saw one suggestion that says to start a
ping, then remove and reinsert the card, which probably would work, but is a
bad idea to someone who needs to be able to remotely reboot a machine, and
then get back into it when it comes up.
Any help is appreciated.
Jim Reprogle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Jason Brossa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ip masq.....again
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 00:40:37 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============7434E2B99A1487FCF5F78DC6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
mike dombrowski wrote:
> Hello LinuxPeople!
>
> I have a linux box with two network cards in it. It's running RH4.2
> and can ping both nets(right word??) that it is connected to. I also
> have a cable modem and a win98 machine serving up proxy. The machine
> is short on disk space, 2x 116mb hard drives, and ram, 8mb, but runs X
> pretty well. If I want it to do IP masq I should read the ipmasq howto
> on the rh4.2 cd right?
yes
> Do I have to recompile the kernel?
no
> I ask
> because it has no c/c++ compilers on it, they were left off to save
> space.
Just use the ipfw .rpm this is for IP masquerading and Packet filtering
It is probably pre-compiled and does'nt need the compiler
> The win box is a 350P2 with 64mb ram, would the linux box offer
> the same level of performance if it was running ip masquerding?
probably
> Can IP
> masq masquerade between multiple network cards?
yes
>
>
> Thanks so much
> Mike Dombrowski
==============7434E2B99A1487FCF5F78DC6
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="jay.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jason Brossa
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="jay.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Brossa;Jason
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Omega Promotional Products;Production Department
adr:;;10 Tindal rd.;Middletown;NJ;;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Graphic Designer
fn:Jason Brossa
end:vcard
==============7434E2B99A1487FCF5F78DC6==
------------------------------
From: "mct1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ip masq.....again
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 05:57:04 GMT
Hello Mike,
first off, the 486 you described is a tad bit skimpy, even for Linux. If I
read your qt right, you would like to make the Linux box your proxy...?
i.e.. do the IP Masquerading stuff - with two NIC's in the Linux box.
(so you can keep the local LAN network)..?
I'm not sure if your kernel has been 'maked' to support IP Masquerading,
but the HOWTO (see addresses below) explain how to set this up.
You will need the compilers to work the new kernel, "if need-be". Most fresh
kernels are not config'd to do the masquerading (ipfwadm, and the like).
The howto on IP_Masquerading explains in detail how to compile, and get the
things to work. Just for the heck-of-it, here are some pointers:
You didn't state what cable modem provider you are using. Most/all providers
are plain-jain TCP/IP based, which is good for us 'tap-hackers', but like
@home, they like to throw a couple snags.... like DHCP. This means that
you'll need the 'dhcpcd' program to log in to your provider. This is easy
stuff though. This is because the providers use your 'hostname' to assign
the static address(s).
Here is a set up that I got to work...(Slackware):
My kernel was configed as per the IP_Masquerading Howto.
I installed the 'dhcpcd' program as per the Howto (peice of cake)
The cable modem was plugged into eth0, and at boot, eth0 had only loopback,
ie.. I set no ip_address or netmask.
**(when the dhcpcd program was started, the card was automagically assigned
the correct address-and-subnet)
eth1 was set up in /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1 to ifconfig it to my local network -
192.168.1.0, subnet 255.255.255.0 so I could keep the LAN together.
I can give you the 'fig-file's and more info, if you need it. I'm using
@home right now, working good. Amazing, A 500+Kbps link to the net for less
than 40 clams/month! With this, you have to have Linux!
Good luck Mike! (see below)
For the IP Masquerading Howto, try here:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/mini/IP-Masquerade
For the DHCP 'dhcpcd' program, try here:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/network/daemons/
and look for the 'dhcpcd-0.70.tar.gz' program.
The howto for the DHCP suff is located here:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/mini/DHCP
The Cable Modem howto, should be here:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/mini/Cable-Modem
And a cool site I found for good Linux info:
http://jgo.local.net/LinuxGuide/
Pat Donahue
mike dombrowski wrote in message <368c2d68.23440082@wingate>...
>Hello LinuxPeople!
>
>I have a linux box with two network cards in it. It's running RH4.2
>and can ping both nets(right word??) that it is connected to. I also
>have a cable modem and a win98 machine serving up proxy. The machine
>is short on disk space, 2x 116mb hard drives, and ram, 8mb, but runs X
>pretty well. If I want it to do IP masq I should read the ipmasq howto
>on the rh4.2 cd right? Do I have to recompile the kernel? I ask
>because it has no c/c++ compilers on it, they were left off to save
>space. The win box is a 350P2 with 64mb ram, would the linux box offer
>the same level of performance if it was running ip masquerding? Can IP
>masq masquerade between multiple network cards?
>
>
>Thanks so much
>Mike Dombrowski
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IP masquerading problem ... Please Help!
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 05:49:49 GMT
I am running RedHat Linux 5.2 which was installed via FTP. I am an amazing
newbie, so please spell it all out! (Flame me if you want; I deserve it,
because I *know* it's something really obvious that I haven't noticed!)
For some wierd reason, I am unable to start IP masquerading properly. I have
a two-machine network, one is Windows 98, one is RH Linux 5.2 with the modem.
I have my Windows 98 box set as a "Direct Internet Connection"
I tried editing the "IPV4_FORWARD=yes/no" in the /etc/sysconfig/network file.
I tried using the "echo "1" > /whatever_directory_it_is/ip_forward" file.
I have tried every single f***ing ipfwadm string I found that looked like it
might be relevant at all. (Oh god, I am SO tired of typed those long
strings!)
The only thing I can think of which I have not done is re-compiled the kernel
... and the "make" command for some reason doesn't exist on my system. (Is it
in an RPM that comes with the RH distribution, only I didn't install it?)
>From tcpdump, I know that the Windows 98 box is communicating to the Linux
box. I do not know enough to say whether the routing tables are correct.
>From tcpdump, it would seem as if I need to make some sort of connection
between eth0 and ppp0 ... ? I don't know.
What I *really* want to do is set up a firewall/proxy dingus. Would that be
any easier?
I have read the HowTo's, and the man pages (which don't make a lot of sense to
me yet!), and tons of messages off DejaNews, and I STILL can't get the damn
thing to work!
If anyone can help, I would appreciate it greatly!
# route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
10.220.10.108 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 1 ppp0
192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1 eth0
127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 1 lo
default 10.220.10.108 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 26 ppp0
If you need more information, I will be more than happy to provide it!
Christopher
--
-= Nothing is more uncommon than common sense =-
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: NOSPAM in addresses..
Date: 31 Dec 1998 21:45:06 -0800
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Dennis" == Dennis McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dennis> Normally I do, but occasionally they ask for a email
Dennis> response. It's a pain dealing with the anti-spamming
Dennis> addressing. What we need is to have a government with the
Dennis> balls enough to do something about it.
Don't email to people who munge addresses. It's that simple. Munged
addresses are a violation of usenet standards. To me, it just
indicates people who prefer not to take care of their spam problem
themselves -- they push the problem off on someone else. It's
particularly pathetic in linux newsgroups, since everyone running
linux has the ability to filter spam with procmail.
Munging addresses does nothing to reduce the actual volume of spam on
the net. It just makes inconvenience for other users.
mp
8<---------------how-easy-is-it-to-demunge-an-address?------------------->8
#! /usr/bin/perl # if you are [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Another Luser):
while ($line = <>){ if ($line =~ m/^\s*$/ ){ last; }
if ($line =~ m/^From: (\S+) \(([^()]*)\)/){ $from_address = $1; } }
if ($from_address =~ m/\S+NOSPAM\S+/){ $x = index($from_address, NOSPAM);
substr($from_address, $x, 6+1) = ""; printf("The real address is %s\n",
$from_address);}else { printf("No munge, just plain %s\n",$from_address);}
printf("\nBrought to you by the Truth In Mail Headers Foundation\n");
8<-----------------------here's-one-example------------------------------>8
- --
Michael Powe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trollope.org
Portland, Oregon USA
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNoxgk7ajuNi/6Js3EQLWxQCfRjQNfSxXIscADrsgyDAfSTvLVREAn3Co
JGxqEs944C0pdXXXHeZLpRz4
=fS5A
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Graham Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ftponly
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:49:40 +1000
You need a shell that returns 'true' once executed, but does not give them a
shell. To this end, you can use either /bin/true which doesn't do anything
much but returns 'true'. A better result id just write a little script that
writes a message informing the user why they are being kicked off the system
before exiting returning 'true'.
I use this one. It workes quite well and lets any telnet snoopers know that
I have stopped their access. It is called /bin/ftponly and has priveleges
rwxr-xr-x.
=========================================================
#!/bin/sh
#
# ftponly shell
#
trap "/bin/echo Sorry; exit 0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 15
#
IFS=""
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
System=`/bin/hostname`
#
/bin/echo
/bin/echo
"********************************************************************"
/bin/echo " You are NOT allowed interactive access to $System."
/bin/echo
/bin/echo " User accounts are restricted to ftp and web access."
/bin/echo
/bin/echo " Direct questions concerning this policy to $Admin."
/bin/echo
"********************************************************************"
/bin/echo
#
# Bye
#
exit 0
=========================================================
Make sure that /etc/shells has an entry for /bin/ftponly
Hope this helps
Greyman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Bishop wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t>...
>I want to set up ftp accounts only. The ftpd man page says that the
>user must have a standard shell returned by getusershell. How do I get
>around this. I don't want any shell activity going on. If I eliminate
>a shell reference in /etc/passwd, I get a ftp login error.
>
>Running RedHat 5.2.
>
>--
>Jeff Bishop
>Advanced Data Analysis and Preservation Technology, Inc.
>
------------------------------
From: "Graham Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gateway Woes
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:51:53 +1000
Sounds like DNS problems to me. We'd need more info on how this and default
routes etc to be able to give anything more definitive
Greyman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob Wiltbank wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Greetingsm folks.. Here's the situation:
>
>I have a linux PC setup as a gateway, on the internal network, I have a
>Windows95 PC correctly configured, so I think my problems might be on
>the linux side.
>
>Once I try to use the gateway from the Win95 PC for an outside
>connection, it's sits there trying to find the address.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Rob
>
------------------------------
** 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.networking) 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-Networking Digest
******************************
