Linux-Networking Digest #728, Volume #10 Sat, 3 Apr 99 06:13:53 EST
Contents:
ipchains and masq ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS-LINUX ("Mark Rogness")
Re: Help with Linux as Client on Sygate... (contains setup information to assist)
("Charles R. Thompson")
PPP problems and Redhat 5.2 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
PPP available for non-root user (general user of this machine)
Control Samba SMB print queue from Win98 (Raoul de Leeuw)
Re: What is the best Linux to install? (jedi)
vgetty & ppp-login (Alexander Fedtke)
Re: Best Free X Windows Server for Win95/98 Box on Samba/Linux Network? (dproc)
Re: RedHat Lousy Support (Richard Steiner)
can't locate module net-pf-4 ("news.interweb.be")
Re: ADSL ethernet with Dynamic IP (Luca Filipozzi)
Re: Help with Linux as Client on Sygate... (contains setup information to assist)
("Charles R. Thompson")
Re: Internet (Lew Pitcher)
Re: STAC compression??? (Erik Hensema)
Re: Sendmail! (Erik Hensema)
Re: ipchains and masq ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: STAC compression??? (James M Fox)
Re: problem with Tulip card and 2.2.x (NOT 2.0.36!) (Rod Smith)
Re: ADSL ethernet with Dynamic IP ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IPmasq and FTP from Win machines (Nick Farley)
FTP uploads (Nick Farley)
Re: Kernel 2.2.3 post-compilation problems (George E. Law)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ipchains and masq
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:24:09 GMT
After going over the How-to twice I am still unable to get ipchains to
masqurade from a small home network to the internet. I can ping between each
maching, but only the router can png out onto the internet (although I did
notice that the MASQ'ed boxes resolved name and still said "Destination host
unreachable." )
For testing purposes only, I used "#ipchains -P forward MASQ"
and tryed pining and telneting out into the void. Neither worked.
"cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward" returns 1
"cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_dynaddr" returns 1
"ipchains -L -v" lists packets increasing in chain input and output but NOT
_forward_.
Any hints would be welcome.
Thomas Zimmerman
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Mark Rogness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.linux.sux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.protocols.smb
Subject: Re: MS-LINUX
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:29:43 -0600
TURBO1010 wrote in message <7e1bgc$5hh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>hought you might like an early peek at this. It'll be going out over
>the wire shortly.
>
>
>
>Microsoft Announces MS-Linux
>
>
> Happy Surfing,
>
April Fools Joke??
I remember falling for the 150 mph pitcher trained in Nepal by Tibetan
Buddhists in 1984.
------------------------------
From: "Charles R. Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with Linux as Client on Sygate... (contains setup information to
assist)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:35:33 GMT
>I have this exact setup, but mine doesn't work either. I can
ping by IP
>Address or even bring up a site in Netscape if I use the IP
Address, but
>it won't resolve any names.
Hmm... I didn't realize I was even able to ping to the world.
This is good. That eliminates me thinking the gateway wasn't
configured properly. The problem is obviously on the Linux end
since the Win clients can access the net and resolve names.
There must be a name resolver either active in Linux, or it is
not pointed towards the gateway to resolve hostnames.
Will get back as I learn more. Thanks for your post.. that
pushed me one step further down the line.
CT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PPP problems and Redhat 5.2
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:16:45 GMT
Something MUST be wrong in RH 5.2 because I've spent many nights trying to
figure out what's wrong with my setup for PPP under 5.2 while I've had PPP
working under 5.1 with no problems. I finally decided to downgrade to 5.1 as
a sanity check and got PPP running in less than 5 minutes. I'd love to find
out which part of 5.2 is the culprit, because I've spent a couple of weeks
following peoples' advice on linux newsgroups to no avail.
BTW, I'm using the same exact setup procedures in 5.2 that I've been using
under 5.1, but PPP under 5.2 has never worked (LCP errors, IPCP errors, etc.)
and sometimes when it connects, none of my network apps like netscape, ftp,
etc. works (DNS problem, default route problem, etc.)
Under 5.1 I don't have anything in /etc/ppp/options except lock.
/etc/resolv.conf has the same nameserver IP's as the ones' on 5.2. The phone
number I'm calling is the same.
My question is: HAS ANY ONE ELSE EXPERIENCED SIMILAR PROLEMS WITH PPP UNDER
5.2 AND FIGURED OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?
I can't find anything on Redhat's site about an errata to fix this problem.
Any insights are appreciated in advance.
Thanks
Bob
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: general user of this machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PPP available for non-root user
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 10:22:12 +0200
Hello,
I would like to be able to start a PPP-connection when not logged in as
ROOT.
How do I go about this? It must be fairly easy but I'm very new at
this...only took me a week to get PPP running in the first place :-)
Thanx,
Franc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raoul de Leeuw)
Subject: Control Samba SMB print queue from Win98
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 08:48:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Control Samba SMB print queue from Win98
I posted this question first in the linux.setup group but got no
reactions. Maybe here somebody knows how to solve this problem.
Is it possible to control a Samba print queue from the Windows 95/98
printer dialog's (stsrt menu / settings / printers)? I would my Samba
print queue on hold so no output from my Windows program can be
printed. But I got the error that it was not possible to do so.
Windows is able to control local and Novell printers, so why not SMB
shared ones on Linux? Is this a matter of user access rights? My
printer is connected with the LPT1 port of my server and I would like
to control it from my Windows Workstation.
Reading the Samba documentation and Howto files did not help.
Hope someone can helpp me,
Raoul.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What is the best Linux to install?
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:54:15 -0800
On 2 Apr 1999 22:10:49 GMT, Danny Aldham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
>Mike Graham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 14:27:59 +0900, Yim,SeongSoo wrote:
>: >I realy recommend to start with RedHat.
>
>: I agree with that. It seems the most 'mainstream'. I was just on their
>: website and it appears that several big players (IBM, COMPAQ, etc.) have
>: pumped in some capital to get in on the action. That's a very telling sign.
>
>And I disagree. I have used RedHat since 2.1 , and Mandrake is better.
>Mandrake _is_ RedHat, with the KDE installed. A nice desktop makes the
>OS much friendlier to beginners. Get Mandrake if you can.
Above and beyond what Redhat 5.2 already delivers it
only really just adds a decent file mangler.
--
"I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die |||
while you discuss this a invasion in committe." / | \
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: Alexander Fedtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: vgetty & ppp-login
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 12:15:22 +0200
Hi,
My modem getty ist vgetty and I want to enable ppp-login.
The standard configuration allowes everybody to login.
But I only want the local existing users to be able to login using
username/password.
I would like using PAP, but a scripted login (login: xxx password: yyyy)
is ok, too.
Thanx for help.
ByeBye.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 23:35:09 -0500
From: dproc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Best Free X Windows Server for Win95/98 Box on Samba/Linux Network?
Eugene VonNiederhausern wrote:
> Cyrus Mehta wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am creating a dual Windows/Linux environment using Samba for file serving
> > on a standard Ethernet network. I was wondering what kind of X server software
> > for the Windows side I could use to run some X windows apps off of the LInux Box.
> >
> > Reliability is the most important factor, windows will crash often enough without
> > the help of the X server.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > CKM
>
> Yesterday, I found the best X server/viewer for windows (and linux) that I have
> seen yet and it is free (GNU Public License). It is called VNC from Olivetti and
> Oracle research laboratory. You can connect from linux->windows, windows->linux,
> linux->linux, windows->windows. It is a lot better than any of the other products
> I have seen ot this kind. I don't have the URL (it is at work) you can email me or
> post a reply and I will get it and reply.
That sounds really interesting. At the moment I use MIX, which is not free (binary
only and other restrictions) but it costs nothing.
I downloaded it from MicroImages <http://www.microimages.com>
It doesn't crash my Windows 95* system. It includes a Window Manager (twm) and its own
fonts which run as native on the Windows box taking some load off the network. This
is important to me as I don't have a real network, just a serial cable between two COM
ports running PPP (pppd) and the X client applications on the Linux* system, and
Dial-Up Networking on Windows. It is only 115200 bits per second! That is not enough
for Netscape, but performance is excellent for large xterms and lynx.
If for some reason the GPL X Server recommended by Eugene doesn't work, why not try
MIX?
Yours, dproc
* Windows 95 is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
* Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: redhat.networking.general
Subject: Re: RedHat Lousy Support
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:57:49 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.networking, "Mark F. Burgo ( Systems Administrator )"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake unto us, saying:
>Not to be a prick but it is easy to tell someone how to start a system
>in single user mode. It is easy to explain that they have an IO ot IRQ
>issue.
FWIW, I strongly agree that a more constructive reply from them would
have been a far better way to handle things. As a support programmer
myself, I know that you can create good feelings between yourself and
the customer base by doing "the right thing" adn volunteering helpful
information instead of only making a minimal effort.
However, there was really no obligation on their part to address his
issue, as the original poster seemed to be implying (and apparently
using as the main basis for his criticism).
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
But honey, you *NEED* Voodoo2 for Dbase management...
------------------------------
From: "news.interweb.be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: can't locate module net-pf-4
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 11:01:46 +0200
Hi there,
Could someone tell me why I get the following error messqge each time I boot
or restart the network:
modprobe: can't locate module net-pf-4
modprobe: can't locate module net-pf-5
I had a look to my module config (even tried to remove everything and
re-install kernel again), but found nothing...
Any clue ?
- Bertrand
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi)
Subject: Re: ADSL ethernet with Dynamic IP
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:09:23 -0800
Are you talking about one-to-one NAT or many-to-one NAT (often called
masquerading)?
If you are talking about the former, then you still need just as many ip
addresses.
If you are talking about the latter, then when the packet header gets
rewritten, both the ip address and port number of the masqueraded machine
are modified. The firewall has to keep track of these port numbers etc.
For a lot of protocols, this isn't a problem. For some, FTP comes to mind
right away, a helper module (in terms of Linux) is required to keep
additional track of connections, etc. That's what Donley meant by asking
you whether you were going to write all these modules.
As for Dynamic DNS... I'm not opposed to it, as long as it is secure (I
use an SSH-based script). I'm in favor of what IANA is trying to do with
it's CIDR allocations. One goal is to make routing tables less complex by
consolidating IP addresses. Another one is to ensure that we don't out of
IP addresses before IPng comes out.
------------------------------
From: "Charles R. Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with Linux as Client on Sygate... (contains setup information to
assist)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 05:01:45 GMT
>Are you running a DNS on 192.168.0.1 ? If not, then maybe you
need to put
>in the proper DNS info here. Since you are using a cable
modem, try
>putting the DNS values for your cable co ISP in place of
192.168.0.1
Yes.. DNS is enabled on 192.168.0.1 and has the correct
nameservers listed. I have come to realize I can ping the
outside world and was able to bring up my company website and
others via IP address, but name resolution is still not working
properly. This means I at least have the gateway right.
My WinClient2 is pointed to 192.168.0.1 for it's DNS resolution
and gateway, but Linux doesn't seem to want to do that (DNS).
Is there a setting somewhere that could have it overriding my
request to use 192.168.0.1 as the DNS server?
>Good luck.....took me a while to get working using a similar
set up....so
>hang in there, it will work....eventually.
I'm pretty confident about it. I'm sure the resolving issue is
the last step involved.
CT
------------------------------
From: Lew Pitcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Internet
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 00:53:19 -0500
Steve wrote:
>
> Where in X Windows can i set up dns numbers so i can access my isp? i'm
> very new to linux so any help is greatly appreciated. i'm running red hat
> 5.2.
X has nothing to do with the DNS addresses.
Take a look at /etc/resolv.conf
There should be 'nameserver' lines like...
domain a.domain.name
search a.domain.name
nameserver 192.168.11.1
nameserver 206.222.74.1
nameserver 204.50.250.1
--
Lew Pitcher | If everyone has an angle, why
JOAT-in-training | are most of them so obtuse?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hensema)
Subject: Re: STAC compression???
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 12:02:07 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Graham Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hensema) writes:
>
>> You'll have to upgrade your kernel to version 2.2, and use the new isdn4linux
>> kernel drivers and utilities from ftp.suse.com/isdn4linux/, compile the
>> utilities, compile the kernel (in that order), and compile the compressor
>
>Is it possible to use this compression with "standard" serial port
>ppp?
>
>My ISP supports Stac compression (of various types) but not any of the
>ones which come standard with pppd or kernel 2.2.x.
No, I don't think it'll work with normal ppp, but only with async ppp over
isdn. If you're a hacker, you could get the source....
--
Erik Hensema ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hensema)
Subject: Re: Sendmail!
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 12:04:58 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jure Krasovic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Hi !
>
>Im running two domain (zzz.org, yyy.org) on mail mailserver with
>sendmail! I would like to make that mails for [EMAIL PROTECTED] go to test1
>user and that mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] goes for somebody2. How can I do
>that.
Use the aliases file (/etc/mail/aliases), it's easy: "joe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
forwards mail to "joe" to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
--
Erik Hensema ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ipchains and masq
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 06:15:30 GMT
Try looking over the mini howto IP-Masquarade it seems t ooffer quite a lot of info
on the subject.
I found this in /usr/doc/Linux-mini-HOWTOs/ on my system.
------------------------------
From: James M Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: STAC compression???
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:07:20 -0500
Graham... I don't know yet.... the my w98 box gets it right 7/8's of the
time. Will have to let you know.
Erik; thx... knew there had to be a way! Pls scuze the html... im a
lurker!
Jim
Graham Murray wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hensema) writes:
>
> > You'll have to upgrade your kernel to version 2.2, and use the new isdn4linux
> > kernel drivers and utilities from ftp.suse.com/isdn4linux/, compile the
> > utilities, compile the kernel (in that order), and compile the compressor
>
> Is it possible to use this compression with "standard" serial port
> ppp?
>
> My ISP supports Stac compression (of various types) but not any of the
> ones which come standard with pppd or kernel 2.2.x.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
Subject: Re: problem with Tulip card and 2.2.x (NOT 2.0.36!)
Date: 2 Apr 1999 15:00:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Posted and mailed]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
BL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did further debugging
I assume this is in reference to a previous posting, but I never saw it,
and it doesn't seem to be in the same thread as this one. In the future,
you might want to reply to your previous messages in situations like this,
to be sure people get any necessary context.
> and determined that with the same hardware and same
> basic kernel config, I can kill the DEC tulip ethernet card with heavy traffic
> on the 2.2 kernel series (up to 2.2.5). While the 2.0.36 kernel will NOT show
> the same problem...
>
> I connect two linux boxes, both running tulip cards, via a rolled (xover)
> cable. both are 100/full modes.
>
> I create a heavy traffic load (ping -s 1000 -f) and after a minute or so, the
> activity lights (on the ethernet cards) stops. at this point, the only way to
> get this setup back to working is to reboot the 2.2 kernel system. note that
> the 2.0.36 system does NOT need to be rebooted - when the 2.2 system comes up
> again, all is well and the two systems can talk again.
>
> I then brought the 2.2 system down to 2.0.36 and repeated the experiment. NO
> HANGS THIS TIME!
First, have you tried the latest Tulip drivers from
http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/tulip-devel.html? I was
experiencing problems with both a 21143 board and a PNIC Tulip clone until
I upgraded to tulip.c version 0.90q. The tulip.c that came with kernels
through 2.2.3 just wouldn't work with the 21143 board, and the "stable"
0.90 worked mostly, but would occasionally flake out. 0.90q seems much
better so far.
Second, what precise Tulip chipset(s) are you using? There are at least
three 10/100 Tulip chipsets from DEC, and several clones. They all behave
slightly differently from one another. For instance, a 21140 board worked
fine for me with the standard Tulip driver from kernel 2.2.3, but as I
just wrote, a 21143 board didn't.
Third, I don't have two machines with Tulip cards. What I do have is an
iMac with whatever networking hardware it's got (BMAC+, according to
dmesg when I boot it into LinuxPPC) and a PC with a Tulip 21143-based
board installed. They're connected via a Linksys 10/100 hub. I've tried
your ping flood test both ways, with both boxes running Linux, and I've
experienced no hangs. The one oddity I have noticed is that, when I use
the iMac to ping the x86 box, the hub's collision light comes on a lot.
When I ping the other way, that doesn't happen. (Does anybody have any
ideas about that?)
--
Rod Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.channel1.com/users/rodsmith
NOTE: Remove the "uce" word from my address to mail me
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ADSL ethernet with Dynamic IP
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 06:36:49 GMT
> In article <recN2.5510$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Let's say all the ISP's in the world "see the light" and change over to the
> > scheme you suggest. Then I guess you wouldn't mind handling all those
> > support calls the ISP's are going to get when one of their users can't run
> > the latest hot new online game because their is no protocol specific handler
> > on the firewall.
That's what NAT is for. Most people never need an externally routable IP
address, and all of them can make do just fine with a private IP. Those that
need to have a more robust connection (such as people maintaining servers or
playing certain kinds of network games) would obviously need to have their IP
NAT'ed to some public (routable) IP address. I was not suggesting that I had
my hands on some sort of magic protocols that would allow private IP
addresses the same capabilities as public, and I apologize if that was the
impression I gave.
> > Personally, when I contract with an ISP I expect them to provide the
> > access to the _Internet_ not some private network with a half-assed
> > bottle-neck of a router.
I think you're confused as to how routing works. So far as your computer is
concerned, the internet *is* some "half-assed bottle-neck of a router", and
it's called your "default gateway". Unless your network happens to be
multi-homed, you're only connecting to one gateway, and it doesn't matter
whether that machine thinks your IP address is 10.x.x.x or some public IP --
it will still route your packets in the same manner (though it may rewrite
packet headers in the case of NAT'ing).
> > Maybe you should _think_ about the ramifications of what you suggest before
> > you start calling other people idiots.
Sorry for the unintended slur against the unintelligent, but I call *everyone*
an idiot sooner or later (most frequently *myself*). Feel free to replace the
word "idiot" in any of my posts with the pejorative term of your choice. How
about "bozo"? "apoplectic turkey"?
> > DHCP has solved a major problem with the Internet.
Yes, but it solved it poorly.
> > It's simply a matter of using the right tool for the job.
I'd like to hear you provide *one* example where dynamic IP's are the right
tool for the job. Using network address translation on a private network is
universally better. Important note: I see nothing wrong with using DHCP to
configure a client -- so long as renumbering occurs *only* when the address
space _needs_ to be rearranged. It is the fact that DHCP is _usually_ used
to reassign IP space *every* *single* *time* the client connects that I
consider to be horribly wrong. I'd say it was "always" used that way, but in
the interest of not being quite so offensive, I'll just _ask_ if somebody can
provide a counter-example, rather than trying to provoke somebody into
providing one. :)
> > It's silly and childish to berate others for percieved mistakes when you
> > don't even understand the requirements they were trying to meet. DHCP is
> > actually an elegant and robust solution to a complex problem. I'd like to
> > see you do better.
I don't need to -- a better solution has been around for decades. Almost
every connected company I've ever worked at has implemented exactly the type
of solution I've been describing. Microsoft pushes DHCP because they don't
really make decent firewall software for Windows. *That's* the reason it got
so popular (lots of businesses started using it as part of bundled Microshaft
networking suites) -- not because of any inherent elegence.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi) wrote:
> Another example where DHCP is useful is inside organizations where the
> goal is not to conserve IP addresses but to have a central location for
> the configuration of default routes, WINS servers, etc, etc.
Yes, that's a very good point (as I mentioned it briefly above). I apologize
for blurring the distinction between DHCP and dynamic IPs. This thread
originated with a discussion of dynamic vs. static IP addressing, but in all
fairness I should have made my position more clear.
So long as renumbering does not occur on a regular basis, DHCP is an extremely
useful tool for managing networks. It's the fact that DHCP is so often abused
that irks me. Dynamic IPs are never a good idea.
> As for DHCP between ISP's and their clients... I think that's just fine.
> I want a real IP address and I don't care that it's dynamic. I upload the
> new IP address to a dynamic DNS systems and everything works just fine.
Ack! I wish you hadn't told me that. Dynamic DNS is another of my pet
peeves. There's another thread in this group where I go down the list of why
DDNS is evil (except for use in private networks), so I won't go into that
here. I hope you're not using DDNS for a public webserver, or for MX
records.
-Bill Clark
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Nick Farley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IPmasq and FTP from Win machines
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 10:43:27 GMT
Enable Passive transfer mode in your FTP client on the Win machine.
Brian Brooking wrote:
> I have a Linux box (2.0.36) acting as my firewall/router/masq for some
> win boxes. Everything runs well, except ftp from the win boxes. I always
> end up with a timeout on 'ls'. I've read the 'TCP Death' update, but it
> seems to address problems from the Linux box not internal net machines.
> Anyone have this problem?
>
> All other services work fine from the win boxes.
------------------------------
From: Nick Farley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FTP uploads
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 10:44:49 GMT
Does anyone know how to allow users to upload to a particular directory?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George E. Law)
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.2.3 post-compilation problems
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 10:42:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Kropf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>My only suggestion would be to make the root partition
>the first one on the disk. However as long as the root
>partition is within the first 1024 cylinders, everything
>should work fine.
>
>
>Aaron Saikovski wrote:
>
>> So if I make 4 partitions and make one of those bootable that might fix the
>> problem.
>> I currently have my drive partitioned as follows.
>> (2Gb drive)
>>
>> 128Mb of swap space
>> the rest of the drive as one big partition eg /
>>
>> This is what I reckon might fix it...
>>
>> 128Mb swap space
>> 200MB /partition
>> 1087Mb /usr
>> /300Mb /home
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>
You may also want to try adding a line to lilo.conf :
linear
I had similair problems and this fixed 'em the first try
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
