Linux-Networking Digest #779, Volume #9 Mon, 4 Jan 99 22:13:41 EST
Contents:
Re: Newbie: network (Linux-W95) problem. (Jordy Leduc)
DNS problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Getting rid of IPX & Appletalk during BOOT - How? (Tom Elsesser)
MAC clients on Linux fileserver ("Ed Karjala")
NE2000 ethernet; was: Making the netcard work on a Dauphin DTR-1 (Terrance Hodgins)
Adding local terminal on cua3 long) ("R. B. Howes")
Re: bug report for netatalk ("Jeffrey S. Kline")
Re: anyone have good settings for connecting through wingate? (Kevin Martin)
Re: does anyone know how I can view another terminal remotely (Victor Wagner)
Re: 3com netelligent 10/100 tx embedded (Kazin)
Re: This ongoing flame-fest ("DG")
Re: DNS problem (Allen Wong)
Re: help with Apache setup (Lei Miao)
Re: POP3 Redhat 5.0 ("Donald K. Tyler")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jordy Leduc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: network (Linux-W95) problem.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:42:27 -0500
Hello
There should be software (from the card Manufacture) that sets what
connection to use, TCP/BNC/AUTO. Try finding the software make sure the
settings are correct. Another suggestion is to boot in DOS on both machines
an there should be some utility (from the card Manufacture) that can test
the connection between the 2 boxes. This will tell you if it is hardware
problem or not.
Jordy Leduc
jmp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a configuration with SuSE Linux, via ethernet connected to a W95
> Pc. Everything is configured as the SuSE book said (I hope ;)),
> including the networkconfiguration (NIC=NE2000 clone, ip
> adres=192.168.1.1, domainname=thor.myexample.com). The W95 box is also
> configured (NIC=Tulip/Dec, TCP/IP protocol, ip=192.168.1.2).
>
> Anyway, I can't get a connection from both sides (using ping). After
> 'ping':
> - var/log/messages: "kernel: eth(): Tx timed out, cable problem?"
> - proc/net/dev: lo: > 2000 packets; eth0: 0 packets
> - tcpdump during ping: "arp who-has 192.168.1.2 tell thor.myexample.com"
>
> Both hardware and software (Linux) are reinstalled twice.
>
> BTW:
> - If I connect 2 W95 boxes using the same cable, everything works fine
> - I don't see any activity on the NE2000 led.
> - The NE2000 has 2 connectors, I use UTP. Does Linux know which
> connector is used?
> - The W95 system has also tcp/ip configured for internet access (isdn).
>
> Can anyone help me, does the NE2000 work or not? Or should I configure
> anything else? Routing?? How can I test it?
>
> thanx!
>
> Jon Petersen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: DNS problem
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 01:43:07 GMT
Hi all,
I'm having a problem with dynamic IP adrressing (DNS actually) of my ISP. PPP
connection is OK (getting IP address allocated), but then cannot do any
surfing after. Name server is not responding, and name lookup eventually
times itself out. But if I use an IP address instead, then it does connect me
to the site.
The ISP (of course) doesn't support Linux, and since I'm newcomer to Linux,
I'm kind of lost!
I'm running RedHat 5.1 on 233Mhz 6x86MX box, kernel 2.1.131.
What seems to be a problem? Could anyone help.
TA Bata
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Elsesser)
Subject: Re: Getting rid of IPX & Appletalk during BOOT - How?
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 02:22:32 GMT
Add theses line to /etc/conf.modules;
alias net-pf-4 off
alias net-pf-5 off
HTH,
Tom
On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:50:54 +0000, Mark Worsdall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> bruited:
>Hi, How can I stop this IPX during the BOOT sequence, I do not need IPX
>or Appletalk.
>
>Jan 4 00:58:34 jilldando kernel:
>Swansea University Computer Society IPX 0.34 for NET3.035
>Jan 4 00:58:34 jilldando kernel:
>IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
>Jan 4 00:58:34 jilldando kernel:
>Appletalk 0.17 for Linux NET3.035
------------------------------
From: "Ed Karjala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MAC clients on Linux fileserver
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:19:17 -0500
Is anyone out there successfully attaching MAC clients to a Linux server? I
would appreciate knowing what, if any technical resources are available to
help me do the same.
Thanks,
Ed Karjala - Derry, NH
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: NE2000 ethernet; was: Making the netcard work on a Dauphin DTR-1
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terrance Hodgins)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:19:47 GMT
In article <76qt4u$sf9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>Would any of you ever successfully have configured a Dauphin DTR-1 to run
>Linux and use the internal netcard? When I tried to install RedHat 5.0 on
>one of these it refused to recognize the built in NE2000 card. An old
>version of Slackware seemed to recognize two different netcards in the
>DTR-1. Could that be because the IRQ is shared between the modem and the
>netcard?
>
>Rgds.
>Anders
>
>
Coincidentally, I am trying to do an NFS installation of RH 5.2,
and getting nowhere with a NE2000-compatible ethernet card.
(I downloaded the whole distribution to a Sun, which can act as
the file server.)
The ethernet card works fine under DOS, and the config and diagnostic
programs seem just fine. I can monitor all the traffic on
my net, perfectly.
But the RH installation routine just says it cannot find the
card. The settings are very standard, i/o=300, irq=11.
No conflicts there. Auto probe may or may not crash...
Usually does. Manually enterring the addresses simply produces
"device not found."
I have also tried some other ethernet cards of unknown quality,
WD8003, WD8013, and it doesn't find them either?
Does this ring any bells?
And if I decide to try an FTP installation, it asks for the
"supp" disk, which I give it, and it runs silently for a few
minutes, and then crashes. The supp disk is good, I verified
the data to make sure that wasn't the problem.
--
* Terrance Hodgins *
* Willamette Web Weavers *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* http://www.navi.net/~weave/ *
------------------------------
From: "R. B. Howes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Adding local terminal on cua3 long)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:51:35 -0800
First, a hello from a newbie to the group and a quick intro.
After going through the painful process of upgrading my home Windoz PC
to a new motherboard and W**** 98, and witnessing the vast bloatware I
spawned therein, I decided to make a break for freedom, and have recently
cobbled together a Linux system (Redhat 5.0) in my basement from an older
486 MB and assorted parts. While I have been in the EE business and
computers for a long time ( I started out designing a custom language
interpeter for a PDP-8/L, if you can believe it), my exposure to UNIX
systems has been limited to the occasional login on large commercial
systems. Being a Linux sysadmin is A NEW and EXHILARATING experience for
me . .!!! (Oh my God - I'm root - I can do ANYTHING I WANT !!) <grin>
Anyway, here's my question (I know this has probably already been asked
and answered many times before, but finding things through Dejanews
proved frustrating) -
I have an old Heath VT52 compatible dumb terminal that I want to set up
as a local terminal through the COM4 (sorry - /dev/cua3) serial port on
the PC. I've found a lot of info on setting up a serial port and modem
for remote dial-in, but not as much with a simple direct connection. I
know I need to use getty to do this, but do I need to edit my inittab
file to set this up at boot time, or can I do this after Linux has come
up?
Any help or URLs with info on this would be very much appreciated!
--
Do not take life too seriously, as it
is not permanent, anyway . . . 8-)
Take out the "spamyuck" to e-mail . . .
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey S. Kline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bug report for netatalk
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:29:21 -0600
Two things we noticed with Redhat and Debian, and might apply here as well.
There are some packet size params issues when setting up the Appletalk
stuff. Make sure those are where they need to be and because of the newer
mac's, these numbers might have to be played with a bit. We did it to ours
to get it to work on 5800's and such as well as networked Apple printers.
Secondly, as I and many others have found out, Permissions are a touchy
issue. Forgetting to set proper permissions will cause a Mac greif since it
doesn't know on a network what it really is dealing with - that's the
servers business. If permissions are not correct on an NT and a Mac tries to
read something for which it doesn't have permissions, you don't always get
the standard permissions dialog on an open.
For what it's worth, I still think that Linux and Mac are a bit yet apart on
some things. It's close but still no cigar, so to speak. If your akin to
some programming and such, might not be a bad idea if you began to do some
investigative work and try see what is happening. Not everyone can do this
but someones eventually going to figure it out.
Jeff
M�ller und Partner Werbeagentur wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> Sorry for re-posting, but noone answered sofar ...
>
> It's really strange. We're running an i386 linux box with Kernel 2.0.33
> from the SuSE 5.2 package. We use netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.0a18.2-8 to serve
>
> 6 Macintoshes running OS 8.1 and 8.5. We get regularily >900K/s
> transfers on a 10Mbit-Ethernet. Everything groovy.
>
> *Except* when we *save* a Freehand-file onto the server, it can't be
> opened again. A double-click correctly launches the application but then
>
> nothing happens, not even an error-message. When using the open-dialouge
>
> FH simply states that the request cannot be processed "because an error
>
> occured". The error does *not* occur, when I copy an (intact) file that
> FH saved to a local disc onto the server.
>
> The reason I believe that it's a netatalk problem is that it does *not*
>
> occur when I try the whole procedure using an NT-Server or a
> peer-to-peer connection to another mac� The error was immediately
> reproducable with another linux box running the same package & kernel.
>
> The problem persists using OS 8.1 or 8.5, it occurs with FH 7.0.2 and
> 8.0.1 and it also doesn't care whether the connection is made via
> AppleTalk or TCP/IP. I've also tried numerous other programs such as
> Photoshop 4 & 5, Word, SimpleText etc. and it did *not* occur.
>
> Any ideas anybody?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: anyone have good settings for connecting through wingate?
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:06:06 GMT
In article <36921377.1908646@wingate>, it says [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daryl
Yager) wrote:
>I'm tearing my hair out trying to come up with magical settings.
It's not that tough -- just remember that unlike using IP masq on Linux or a
true NAT product for Windows (Sygate, NAT1000), you're connecting TO the
Wingate box. You can ping the machine that's running it, right? First
things first. Gotta have your LAN working before you can expect to use it
to reach the Net.
So. Your access to the Net is via a Wingate PROXY server. You have to tell
Netscape to use the Wingate's IP address as the proxy server.
To use telnet, you have to telnet TO the Wingate box and get a "Wingate>"
prompt, then tell it what site you want.
To use FTP you have to tell the Wingate box to log in on your behalf, as
user@site -- e.g. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
Frankly if I were you, I'd rip that modem off of the Winbox and put it on
the Linux machine where it belongs. :-, (That's only half-a-smiley
because I'm only half-joking when I say that.)
--
Kevin Martin No-spam zone.
<brasscannon No prisoners. No warning shots.
@usa.net>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Subject: Re: does anyone know how I can view another terminal remotely
Date: 4 Jan 1999 12:51:38 +0300
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daddy Rabbit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I would like to be able to see a remote terminal so I can help users
: by watching what their doing and giving them instructions over the
: phone line. TSX-32 and VMS 11 use to have a similar tool called Tutor.
: Does anyone know of this kind of application for Linux?
There is tool, named kibitz, which comes as part of expect package.
It works on any architectire. Only drawback, that it doesn't allow to
connect to existing login session unless kibitz was started by that
user.
: Thanks. Jim
--
========================================================
I have tin news and pine mail...
Victor Wagner @ home = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Kazin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3com netelligent 10/100 tx embedded
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:49:28 -0500
Schroh wrote:
>
> Kazin wrote:
> > The Netelligent cards are made by TI, not by 3Com. And unfortunately,
> >they're not supported in Linux, as far as I know, and I looked. Your
> >best bet is to purchase another network card, and disable that one.
> >
> He's correct in that assumption. Linux does not current support imbedded
> network interfaces. Another network card would fix that problem....but....
> with the Compaq Desk Pro there is a configuration disk that enables and
> disables the embedded device, and from experience even when disabled I could
> NEVER get another network card to work correctly. Good luck if you get it
> going.
Actually, I was wrong. It turns out that those things have TI
ThunderLan chips, which is supported by the TLAN driver. Just want to
make that clear.
=======================================================================
Mike Stella Software / Systems Engineer
http://www.sector13.org/kazin Thirteen Technologies, LLC
=======================================================================
------------------------------
From: "DG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.install,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: This ongoing flame-fest
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:17:09 GMT
I do have a comment on that one. You want to tell me that just because you
went through a living hell means that others should too when it comes to
repartioning and then doing FTP install. Well, bozo, not everyone has to
suffer the same as you did. I did not say that I was buying a cd burner. In
fact if you read my initial posts, you would have jumped to the wrong
conclusion, you f****** idiot. besides, since you have collaborated with
microsoft, chances are they gave you a chance to backup without having to
pay a few hundred dollars. Also, think about this. Every few months, RH
releases a new CD which makes your previous version rather extinct. Now
think about having to pile up all the old versions. Got it? Probably not.
You're a mentally retarded MF as are the rest of these pathetic idiots
except for "Crossbones."
Moriarty wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hey all...
>
>I personally like to read this and other Linux related newsgroups for the
>same reasons many of your others do: To learn from one another and help one
>another, if we are able of course... Unfortunatly, there is now a
flame-fest
>going on in this thread, and personally, I wish it would stop.
>
>I am not attempting to flame anyone on either the majority users or DG's
>side... I am just trying to clear the air... I mean, for many of us, USENET
>is more than just newgroups... USENET is a way of life... And, like in the
>real world, it is usually better for us to get along and become productive,
>than to always be angry and everything get destroyed in a heartbeat...
>
>To DG: I read your first post (the initial post that started this) that
>requested help from the members of these groups. I was going to respond to
>you, but I first (like usual) read the other people responses to your
>responses and, to be honest with you, after re-reading all the posts of
this
>thread over and over again, I fail to understand why you are so upset with
>us. In my opinion (and I'm sure yours and others will have differing ones),
I
>think many other people at first tried to help you find the easiest, least
>time-consuming way to solve your original problem. To be honest with you, I
>am all for the idea that one can log on to the net at any time and download
>either patches, updates, or the whole smoe of the Linux OS for free. The
fact
>that it was originally made available by Mr. Torvaldes in the source code
>format for free under the GPL is what has enable others and myself to
legally
>enhance and modify these sources and re-distribute them back on the net so
>that others, in whatever way they can, can benefit from the total sum of
our
>collective knowledge. Now, Mr. DG, I have collaborated with Microsoft
before
>on several projects and beta testing surveys, and I personally can tell you
>the frustration I felt when I needed to re-format my Windows partitions and
>do a complete re-install because of some renegade thread in a program which
>screwed it all up. I don't know about you, but if the only way you could
>restore Windows was to make a disk which has just the proper software,
tools,
>and drivers on it to just connect to your ISP, and then make the FTP
>connection each and every time the system dies, I think you would get
rather
>tired of repeating this task over and over again... I mean, a good complete
>software on Linux, in my opinion is over 500+ MB, and the basic Windows 98
>stuff is around what, 240 MB or so? And then, after you have spent the time
>required to download the software, then have to spend the time waiting to
>install it, you may be looking at several hours (based on the transfer
>figures you gave us at 500 MB/2 hours), and having a CD copy, in my humble
>opinion, would be a heckuva lot easier to keep on hand then to have to keep
>repeatedly downloading over and over again. When the earlier posters
>suggested that you make a purchase of one of the various CD-ROMS available,
>they were not trying to insult your intelligence, or take away your rights
as
>an Internet user - they (and I) were just speaking from the experience that
>years of tinkering and hassles of trying new things out has taught us. I
>believe one gentleman suggested you go to the Cheapbytes website
>(http://www.cheapbytes.com) and purchase the Linux distrubution for $1.99
>(w/Total shipping charges it comes to around $8.50 or so in US Dollars)...
>I honestly believe that these people were not trying to pick on you or
start
>a fight or deny you anything which you feel you are entitled to. I believe
>that they were under the impression from your posts that you had some past
>familarity with Linux (RedHat Distributions in particular) and were ready
to
>make the switch from Windows 9x as your primary OS to Linux. (I myself got
>that same impression after reading your initial posts based on how you were
>wanting to set up your hardware per your descriptions)... The reason why
they
>told you to buy the premade CD-ROM was to save you both time and money - I
>mean, didn't you yourself say that you didn't want to shell out the cash to
>get a CD-ROM burner? No offense to you, but in my opinion, $1.99 + shipping
>is *MUCH* *MUCH* cheaper than several hundred dollars for a *good*
>CD-ROM burner... I think maybe you mistook these other peoples posts as
being
>critical of you, when in fact (in my opinion) they were actually trying to
>save you some grief... Now, be honest with us here - when you first got to
>the point in your self-taught education, how many times did you get to the
>point where a re-install of Windows 9x was necessary? Several I bet. Now,
it
>is true, both of my opinion and of several millions of Linux users (and
>Microsoft also, according to their in-house memos) that Linux is far more
>stable an environment (especially for development and Net applications)
than
>Windows 9x / NT, but we also realize that nothing is ever perfect and that
>there is always the possibility of a crash or a major bug popping up where
a
>re-install of all systems maybe necessary. Now do you see why having a
backup
>CD-ROM would be desireable? I mean, all your drives are wiped: So, you
would
>have to 1. Set up Windwos 9x all over again. 2. Install the Internet FTP
>software 3. Configure the Net stuff 4. Dial-up/Connect and FTP all those
>hundreds of MB all over again... 5. Reboot and setup Linux... 6. Configure
>everything that you lost in the crash... 7. Fix every little minor detail
you
>may have missed... And so on and so on... With a CD-ROM, you could take a
>good two hours off of this process... Maybe you don't run a website (or
maybe
>you do), but I know that there are many on USENET who also double as
>webmasters and such, and if the servers are down, then they are losing
>money... Are you with me so far?
>
>Now, personally, I have no opinion on how you get your money or what you
>choose to do with it. if it is your money and you earned it, then you have
>ever right to do with it as you see fit. Same with what you choose to do
with
>your hardware and/or software you already own or already buy... If you were
>to decide to go out and buy a K7-500 Mhz CPU in 6 months or so, I would say
>more power to you, and I would support you in any way possible (as well as
be
>secertly envious :) The type of people who run OSes like Linux are the type
>of people who like to tinker, problem-solvers and developers who like to
get
>in and get their hands-dirty with new software and hardware, to push the
>technology envelope to the extreme (or as extreme as they can get)... In my
>opinion, if I am starting out on something brand new, and there is someone
>who obviously is more knowledgeable about it than me on it, I am most
>*defintely* going to try and learn from them or ask them their advise... I
>don't have to agree with it or do what they say... Nothing says that you
are
>obligated to what the members of this group suggest... (It is your money,
>your hardware, and your software, and your time, after all) We will not be
>offended in any way as long as you respect our rights to our opinions...
>Hopefully, most of the time we are right, or can point you in the direction
>to a place (A website, for example) where you can find it on your own...
But,
>like all things in life, sometimes we are wrong... But remember, the
>USENET is for anyone who has any ideas at all to come and participate and
>share what both the newer people are looking for, as well as gain
experience
>from the people who have more knowledge and familarity... But remember, at
>any time you are free to stop logging into your NNTP server... You don't
have
>to post... There will always be people who will disagree on anything with
>you, no matter what the subject... The fact that we are able to form
>different opinions independently from anyone else is what probably
seperates
>humankind from the lesser species on the planet... You know what I mean?
You
>came on this group posting a problem, and we responded (or at least some of
>us did) - I'm not quite sure why you became so upset... I am at a lost as
to
>why this thread even got started and continued...
>
>Maybe you are a natural-born troublemaker... These people do exist.
>But, since I know nothing about you, and I have never met you or
encountered
>you in my personal life to the best of my knowledge, I am going to treat
you
>with the same respect and dignity that I would give any person either on
here
>or in the real world... But, once you abuse that trust that people given
you,
>then it is usually *very* difficult, if not impossible, to regain what was
>lost, and build again from there...
>
>All I ask that before you launch your newsreader and flame me to the ends
of
>the Earth for this post, is that you try to see my side of it - our side
>maybe? - and realize that nobody was trying to tell you what to do... On
the
>net, nobody knows anything about anybody else until you yourself tell us,
and
>there are lots of ways that people can tell traits in other people...
Please
>also realize that many of the people on the USENET have been *very*
longterm
>Internet users (I myself have been online for over fifteen years now) and
>while we may be set in our weird little ways, on most technical topics, we
do
>know what we are talking about... Take it from those who know, and maybe
you
>will save time, money, resources, and maybe even more importantly, make
some
>new friends... Of course, and I am only going to say it once, you screw
>around with the wrong people, and it is quite possible that you will not be
>logging on for soem time without *quite* a bit of effort...
>DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Thank you. :)
>
>I hope that DG and anyone else who reads this message will send me some
>feedback on this, whether good or bad... I welcome all opinions - good,
bad,
>indifferent, or completely new fresh ones... :)
>
>Thank you for your time and for your attentive patience... Take care, and
>have a good day...
>
>Moriarty
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Allen Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DNS problem
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 18:40:12 -0800
What IP address did you put in your resolv.conf file as your ISP's
nameserver?
------------------------------
From: Lei Miao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: help with Apache setup
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 13:32:16 +1100
if you are sure that you have your .html files (index.html in particular) at
the right location ie. DocumentRoot, perhaps you forgot to restart the
server to have the settings take effect. ie kill -HUP <httpd pid>
Lei
"Ashwin K. Raj" wrote:
> I have installed APACHE WEB SERVER on a LINUX machine that is connected to
> the network when on Windows95. This machine has both LINUX and W95.
>
> I set up the server and edited the /etc/*.conf files. The BindAddress was
> changed to this machine's IP address on the network and I let the default
> Document Root be the default, i.e.,
> DocumentRoot "/usr/local/apache/share/htdocs"
>
> Still, when I type in this machine's IP address from another machine on
> the web, I get the default "it worked!" page, and I have no idea where the
> index.html and other documents are located if it isin't the default. I
> tried changing DocumentRoot and accordingly moved the files, but the same
> page still appears.
>
> This is probably very basic to all of you, and maybe that's why I still
> have not found anyone else having the same doubt. But I am in dire need of
> kind enlightenment, after which I will continue setting up the server.
>
> Somebody please help...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ashwin
------------------------------
From: "Donald K. Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: POP3 Redhat 5.0
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:31:10 -0600
Robert it sounds like inetd is answering the request but cannot find the
pop3d server.
Verify that the program (?ipop3d) that is in the /etc/inetd.conf file is in
the /usr/sbin directory. Make sure that it has the right name and spelling.
I had a problem with this as well.
Robert Clouse wrote:
> I have a sendmail server running that accepts smtp mail into it, but
> when I look at port 110, it just disconnects. Do I need a special pop3
> user id, or am I missing some rule somewhere?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
