Linux-Networking Digest #572, Volume #10 Sat, 20 Mar 99 19:13:30 EST
Contents:
Fetchmail posts two copies of each mail... ? (Matthew)
Re: Tool to check external IP address assigned by NAT? ("MattW")
Re: Advice on Linux as internet gateway (Steve Robertson)
Re: Almost there with PPP, except. . . (Bill Unruh)
Re: Anybody using the D-Link DFE-530TX? (Mogens Kjaer)
Re: _Networking Ques.: Is "Peer-to-Peer" Networking Possible Among Multiple Linux
Standalone Machines? ("MattW")
Automatically starting dialup connection when starting Netscape? (MIBO)
Re: Mail Server Behind Firewall (Greg Weeks)
Networking linux with WINDOWS 98 ("Peter No�")
Re: Advice on Linux as internet gateway ("MattW")
Re: DDNS considered harmful?, Re: DNS entry for dynamic IP address
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux, DSL & 3C509B (Don)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Fetchmail posts two copies of each mail... ?
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 22:52:57 +0000
Reply-To: Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello,
I am using fetchmail to retrieve mail from an ISP to a mail gateway
machine running RedHat Linux 5.1 and sendmail 8.8.7 (sendmail.cf 8.8.4). I
don't think that sendmail is the problem though...
The mail is posted into a multidrop box at the isp (any mail that goes to
mydomain.co.uk). My machine is locally called gateway.mydomain.co.uk (and
other machines on the network are called a.mydomain.co.uk, b.mydom..., c.
etc.)
I have to use POP3 to retrieve the mail, but with fetchmail it gets the
mail from the ISP, and then depending on how I change the .fetchmailrc
file either sends it all to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or to, say,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *and* [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendmail then
reports a problem because the MX dns entry points gateway.mydomain.co.uk
to mydomain.co.uk and reports a DNS loop, bouncing one of the two e-mails
back to the sender.
I could use the first method of all e-mail going to root, and then use
procmail to separate e-mail out to each user (which seems to allow more
dynamic configuration), but then the users cannot use "Reply" to reply
e-mail back to the sender, as the sender of the mail is now "root".
Please help! I don't really mind which method I use to retrieve the mail,
but it really needs to put the e-mails into local (mail gateway) mailboxes
unaltered from downloading from the ISP.
Thanks,
Matthew
------------------------------
Reply-To: "MattW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "MattW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tool to check external IP address assigned by NAT?
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:52:22 -0800
O.K. Sorry...
Try this http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/nph-traceroute.pl
Don't suppose you know of an answer to my question a few posts back today.
Have been waiting most of the afternoon for someone to give a suggestion.
Hope it helps and Thanks,
Matt W
Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MattW wrote:
>
> > Traceroute... Your routers IP address on the second interface.
The
> > one not connected to your internal network is the IP address usually
> > assigned if that is you NAT router.
> >
> > It all works through the use of that single IP.
>
> I think you misunderstood my situation a little bit. Mine is a many-to-
> many setup here, that is, the NAT router assigns my internal host an
> external IP address every time I initiate network. My internal host IP
> address remains the same, and it is just that the external IP address
> that keeps changing all the time (hence NAT)?
>
> Yours,
> --Albert
------------------------------
From: Steve Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advice on Linux as internet gateway
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 23:15:32 +0000
Richard Steiner wrote:
> Here in comp.os.linux.networking, Dale Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >I will be switching to ADSL service here at the end of the month when it
> >becomes available in my area. I have several computers at home and I
> >would like to network them and use a dedicated machine to provide
> >internet access. I will be networking four pentiums (running win95/98)
> >and I would like to use a 486dx2-66 I have as the dedicated machine.
> >
> >Is it possible to configure Linux to act satisfactorily as an internet
> >gateway on a 486? (Or am I shooting myself in the foot?)
>
> That's exactly what I do here. A pair of PPros (soon to be three) on
> the inside of the firewall, and a 486DX4/100 using IP Masquerading as
> the guardian against the Evil Forces Without. :-)
>
> >Also, is a particular flavor of Linux better suited to this task than
> >another?
>
> Probably not. Although some mini distributions (Trinux is one example)
> are sort of specialized for such use. I just use Red Hat here.
>
> >Although I'm pretty competent working with tcp/ip networks on windows
> >machines, I'm pretty inexperienced with Linux and Unix systems in
> >general so the most user-friendly recommendations would be appreciated.
> >:)
>
> If you don't really need a service running on the firewall box, make
> sure you turn it off. :-)
>
> >As far as hardware is concerned, is there anything I should avoid or be
> >leary of? I have been planning on setting up a 100mb UTP ethernet with
> >generic NE2000 NICs and a simple hub.
>
> I have a 3Com 10BaseT hub here, the PPros all have Intel EtherExpress
> Pro/100B cards, and the firewall has a pair of el-cheapo NE2000 clone
> cards. They work fine.
>
> >If there are any links or other sources of information you can point
> >me to, I'd appreciate it.
>
> DejaNews. :-)
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
>
> Perhaps also here:
>
> http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/mini/ADSL.html
> http://www.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~ambrose/
>
> --
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
> WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
> -- This tagline was discovered by an alchemist --
Richard,
What are using for the Firewall/Forwarding control; IPFWADM or IPChains? I'm
really struggling with IPFWADM and would appreciate an editted version of
your IPFWADM statements -- if you don't mind.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Almost there with PPP, except. . .
Date: 20 Mar 1999 22:36:55 GMT
In <HpAI2.17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Brian E. Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I can call in with a Win9x box (which will be all it will be receiving calls
>from once it gets going) and it happily connects (using minicom). I login
>via minicom from the login prompt that I get. I can't run pppd as my user,
>I have to 'su'. Here's by /usr/sbin/pppd:
Use mgetty to answe the calls, not minicom. Works very well
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 106876 Jun 8 1998 pppd
chmod +s /usr/sbin/pppd
as root.
>The second problem I have is that it isn't routing my IP once I get logged
>in via PPP. I can't ping or telnet, etc. I _am_ receiving my IP number
? run proxyarp as a pppd option on the linux box.
Make sure IPforwading in on. (etc/sysconfig/network FORWARD_IPV4=yes)
>from my options.ttyS0 file. In that file, I have the line:
>netmask 255.255.254.0
Weird netmask. why the 254 rather than 255.
>but when I run a winipcfg, it shows a netmask of 255.255.0.0. That's the
>third problem.
>And, the fourth problem is that I want it to login seamlessly, without
>having to open up a dialog box. I'm not sure how to set up my pap-secrets
>file for that.
You have to decide how ou want them to log on-- whetehr with PAP or CHAP
(better) or login. If with PAP or CHAP use AutoPPP in
/etc/mgetty*/login.config.
>I'm not very knowledgable about how groups work on Linux (I'm a NetWare
>based thinker) but I would like to do either of the following:
>1) Set up 1 user to log into the box via PPP
>2) Have it where anyone with a valid account can log in via PPP
Fine. Use either the login authentication or CHAP. In the latter case
you have to set up the chap-secrets file with a line for each user ( and
use the require-chap option to pppd).
In the former you need to use the noauth and tell the users to run pppd
when they have logged on.
------------------------------
From: Mogens Kjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anybody using the D-Link DFE-530TX?
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:48:33 +0100
Minh Doan wrote:
>
> Just wondering if anybody who uses the D-Link DFE-530TX 10/100 Fast Ethernet
> adapter with RedHat (I have 5.2) could tell me how they set it up?
>
> I can't seem to find it among the network adapters cards available.
Use the via-rhine driver.
Mogens
--
Mogens Kjaer, Carlsberg Laboratory, Dept. of Chemistry
Gamle Carlsberg Vej 10, DK-2500 Valby, Denmark
Phone: +45 33 27 53 25, Fax: +45 33 27 47 08
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.crc.dk
------------------------------
Reply-To: "MattW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "MattW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: _Networking Ques.: Is "Peer-to-Peer" Networking Possible Among Multiple
Linux Standalone Machines?
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:25:56 -0800
Went looking for you to maybe find some good source of information for
you... Couldn't find anything other then a reference to using Samba on the
Linux Machine to allow communication with other Win machines.
When deciding on a solution or path the amount of information you find on
the subject can be a really good hint on the direction you should take.
I personally havn't used the peer to peer method in several years and that
was with AppleTalk.
If you are looking for simplisity then stick as closly as possible to common
standards.
A simple hub & "star" configuration is easy to set up, easy to maintain,
easy to upgrade, and can be done at a on a very tight budget.
Don't worry about the client server stuff. If you move to all linux then
Linux works very well with tcp/ip. There is plenty of information and you
can add new services when you are ready without much hassle.
Another big benefit of this is not being as slow as your slowest link and
the ability to upgrade piece by piece. You can upgrade a hub without
upgrading all of the clients. Then upgrade the clients when you get around
to it. You can service a client without stopping production on all of your
clients.
In the future if you want a dedicated server... Plug it in.
Don't get lost (or stuck) in existing models. Something is not working for
you now and you must change. Make your change as painless as possible with
the most potential for growth.
Just my opinion,
Matt W.
LScott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:01be731d$44795240$4a14bfa8@nuncus...
> Gentlemen and Ladies:
>
> This message asks whether a "Peer-to-Peer" network, instead of a
> client-server network, may be used between multiple, standalone, Linux
> machines. Our "QUESTIONS" follow the preliminary "BACKGROUND" information
> provided with respect to the current design of the existing network that
we
> want to convert entirely into a "peer-to-peer" Linux-only network (if
> possible and reasonably practical to do so).
>
> BACKGROUND: We would like to convert our computing entirely over to Linux
> operating systems in all of our computers. That is, we would like to have
> Linux be the sole and only operating system used in our organization.
> Thus, we have no plans at all for integrating any other O/S, such as
> Windows or Macintosh, with or into this Linux network that we hope we can
> accomplish.
>
> Historically, we have conducted our activities in our workgroup in a
> so-called "peer-to-peer" network configuration that has the following
> characteristics:
>
> 1. There are four machines in our immediate group:
>
> a. Three (3) standalone workstations; and
>
> b. One file server that contains only an O/S and
> the data files with which the personnel at the
> three standalone machines perform their work.
>
> 2. Each of the three standalone workstations contains
> the various programs and applications employed by
> the users at their respective standalone machines in
> accomplishing their work.
>
> Note: Only programs and applications are kept on
> the hard drives of the three standalone machines; no
> data files at all are kept on the hard drives of the three
> standalone machines.
>
> Further: Each of the respective users of the
> standalone machines is entirely free to use
> the applications and programs of his or her
> own choice in performing his or her own work.
>
> Thus, in varying degree, the three standalone
> machines each contains differing programs and
> applications fom the other standalone workstations.
>
> 3. The file server contains no programs or applications
> whatsoever. In other words, no programs are run
> from the file server by any of the standalone machines.
>
> However, in addition to being only a "file server,"
> the file server is the machine that
>
> a. contains the printers for the entire network
> and actually handles for the entire network
> the print jobs that are sent to it from the
> three standalone machines; and
>
> b. contains the Post Office for the email system
> used on the network. The Post Office is actually
> remotely administered by one of the users on
> one of the three standalone machines.
>
> 4. The following "resources" are shared around
> the network by all four machines:
>
> a. All drives and directories (Or "folders") and
> files are read/write shared by all four
> machines;
>
> b. The printers (located on the file server) are
> shared by all four machines;
>
> c. One of the three standalone machines is a
> dial-in network server for the entire network
> and also acts as a faxmodem (fax) server for
> all of the machines in the network.
>
> 5. No programs at all are shared as between any two or
> more computers in the network.
>
> 5. The network uses thin ethernet coax cable that runs
> from each machine to the next -- i.e., there is no
> "star" or "hub" involved.
>
> Although at first blush this network may seem "too open" or lacking in the
> security features of a "client-server" network arrangement, you may assume
> that, among the persons who work in this network, security is not an
issue.
> To the extent that security may be required from time to time, we simply
> password the relevant directories or other resources so that they can be
> used only by those who are working upon the particular project that needs
> to be secured.
>
> QUESTIONS: Based upon the foregoing background information provided with
> respect to our currently existing network, and since, to a person, we are
> the barest of novices at Linux, we would be most appreciative if the more
> knowledgeable and experienced members of the newsgroup could enlighten us
> with respect to the questions we need to consider in making our transition
> of our existing network to a Linux-only network:
>
> 1. Can Linux be networked as a "Peer-to-Peer"
> network as described above?
>
> a. If so, do the distributions of Linux come
> equipped to set up such a network or is
> some additional network application or
> program needed to effect the "Peer-to-Peer"
> network configuration that we want to create?
>
> b. If not, what kind of network would we have
> to use? Client-Server? (client-server is simply
> overkill for us)
>
> 2. Can Linux be used to accomplish the "sharing" of the
> resources as we have outlined the degree of "resource
> sharing" above?
>
> If so, is this a complicated matter to accomplish or is
> it a relatively simple matter such as is true in
> peer-to-peer networking in Windows for Workgroups
> and among Win95 machines that have been arranged
> in workgroups?
>
>
> 3. Finally, in the event that we should find ourselves
> at some point merging or combining with another
> group that uses an O/S different from Linux (such
> as NT, Win95/98, Macintosh, or OS2):
>
> a. Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a Linux
> workgroup, such as ours would be, into a larger
> network that uses neither Linux nor Unix as
> the O/S for its network?
>
> b. Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a
> computer -- that uses an O/S other than
> Linux -- to a Linux workgroup such as the
> one we hope we can create? (i.e., for
> example, would it be particulary difficult
> for an NT or for a Win95/98 machine to
> join us and use our network?).
>
> These two operations ("plug in" to someone else's
> network and remain peer-to-peer among ourselves
> or "plug in" someone else to our peer-to-peer
> network and have them now also be a peer-to-peer
> member of our workgroup) was, and has been,
> rather simple and easy to accomplish both under
> Windows for Workgroups and under Win95. Are
> we in for some wrenching "shocks" and "surprises"
> under Linux? Or, will life just go on -- albeit under
> a different, and hopefully much more useful,
> operating system?
>
> 4. Finally, given what we would like to accomplish
> with our network configuration, is there a
> particular distribution of Linux upon which we
> should be focusing? SUSE? Caldera? RedHat?
>
> Sorry to send up such a long message, but we thought it would probably be
> best to "lay it all out at once" and first find out if we are even on the
> right track or whether we need to learn a whole new mindset with respect
to
> how we are going to have to get our work done under Linux?
>
> Any enlightenment, insights, suggestions, comments, or references to web
> or hard copy resources with respect to our questions will be greatly
> appreciated. Thus far, our search for the answers at the linux.org, et.
> al. web sites has turned up no answers to our questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> LScott
>
------------------------------
From: MIBO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: worldonline.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Automatically starting dialup connection when starting Netscape?
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 00:22:54 +0100
Is it possible to startup the dialup connection automatically when
Netscape is started?
I use kppp (since I could not get the dialup connection configured with
YAST (Suse 6.0)).
Mike Bosschaert
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Weeks)
Subject: Re: Mail Server Behind Firewall
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:44:08 -0600
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My IP Masq firewall uses ipportfw to open the incoming mail
>> port. This is Linux IP Masq specific.
>>
> Is there any problem using IP Masq in conjunction with ipfwadm?
>
> As far as the filtering, I might consider allowing arbitrary incoming
> SMTP packets. Say the MX record shows xxx.xxx.xxx.y and the firewall is
> xxx.xxx.xxx.z. Can I alias the 'z' to respond to 'y' and then route the
> packets inside?
Maybe. <grin> ipportfw allows this in a limited way.
The IP Masq tables are normally set up in response to an out-going
connection. The ipportfw patch (built into 2.2 kernels) allows adding
an entry to the Masq tables with a utility. ipfwadm doesn't actually
allow you to open the in-coming connection without the out-going one
to set the tables up.
ipautofw allows you to specify rules to set up in-coming connections
on different ports than the out-going connection was on. This is
mainly used for services that don't have a Masq proxy yet and that use
UDP on a different port number that the out-going UDP packet.
I hope this helps.
Greg Weeks
--
http://durendal.tzo.com/greg/
------------------------------
From: "Peter No�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Networking linux with WINDOWS 98
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 00:34:14 +0100
Hey,
I've installed linux and I want to use a telnetsession under Windows 98 to
work with linux. Which deamon must I use to get connected from Windows to
linux. Both networkcards are configurated well
Greetings Peter
------------------------------
Reply-To: "MattW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "MattW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advice on Linux as internet gateway
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:37:22 -0800
Should answer about all of your questions.
http://www.linuxrouter.org/
and fit on a floppy disk as well :-)
Matt W.
Richard Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here in comp.os.linux.networking, Dale Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >I will be switching to ADSL service here at the end of the month when it
> >becomes available in my area. I have several computers at home and I
> >would like to network them and use a dedicated machine to provide
> >internet access. I will be networking four pentiums (running win95/98)
> >and I would like to use a 486dx2-66 I have as the dedicated machine.
> >
> >Is it possible to configure Linux to act satisfactorily as an internet
> >gateway on a 486? (Or am I shooting myself in the foot?)
>
> That's exactly what I do here. A pair of PPros (soon to be three) on
> the inside of the firewall, and a 486DX4/100 using IP Masquerading as
> the guardian against the Evil Forces Without. :-)
>
> >Also, is a particular flavor of Linux better suited to this task than
> >another?
>
> Probably not. Although some mini distributions (Trinux is one example)
> are sort of specialized for such use. I just use Red Hat here.
>
> >Although I'm pretty competent working with tcp/ip networks on windows
> >machines, I'm pretty inexperienced with Linux and Unix systems in
> >general so the most user-friendly recommendations would be appreciated.
> >:)
>
> If you don't really need a service running on the firewall box, make
> sure you turn it off. :-)
>
> >As far as hardware is concerned, is there anything I should avoid or be
> >leary of? I have been planning on setting up a 100mb UTP ethernet with
> >generic NE2000 NICs and a simple hub.
>
> I have a 3Com 10BaseT hub here, the PPros all have Intel EtherExpress
> Pro/100B cards, and the firewall has a pair of el-cheapo NE2000 clone
> cards. They work fine.
>
> >If there are any links or other sources of information you can point
> >me to, I'd appreciate it.
>
> DejaNews. :-)
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
>
> Perhaps also here:
>
> http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/mini/ADSL.html
> http://www.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~ambrose/
>
> --
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
> WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
> -- This tagline was discovered by an alchemist --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DDNS considered harmful?, Re: DNS entry for dynamic IP address
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 23:54:39 GMT
In article <7cuvdd$j81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] A dynamic MX would clearly be abusive [...]
> [...] It would be even ruder to run a public Web site that way. [...]
> [...] Where's the similar abuse in non-MX, non-HTTP DDNS?
Well, when you put it that way, there's nothing wrong with it! :)
Seriously, you *obviously* know what I'm talking about, or else you wouldn't
have pointed out that the two highest-hit DNS records (the MX('s) and A's for
the webserver(s)) are a bad idea for DDNS.
Just take that reasoning that last step further and realize that *any* dynamic
DNS use is not a "good" thing. Simply because some uses aren't _as_ _bad_ as
others, or are so low as to be "below the threshold" for badness or whatnot,
doesn't make DDNS a good idea. If enough people were using it, it would be a
major problem -- so suggesting it's use in usenet is a bad bad thing.
In any event, it's not going to work as effectively as regular DNS with
static IP's, because as I've pointed out before, *many* admins maintain DNS
boxes that *ignore* the TTL field, precisely for this reason. I'd estimate
that at least 10% of all web browsers on the internet use DNS servers that
ignore TTL's (from past headaches involving the renumbering of a very
high-traffic website). One week is the minimum time I'd allow for old DNS
records to be flushed from everyone's caches (no matter what you set your TTL
to). Even then, there will _still_ be some DNS servers that have the old
record (though after a week the percentage becomes vanishingly small).
...and to equate DDNS to SPAM, I suppose it would have been more accurate to
say it this way: DDNS is to DNS as SPAM is to Usenet. That allows the
comparison to be more direct (both DNS and INND provide similar levels of
control and accounting). I *am* assuming high-volume of traffic for
DDNS-supplied name resolution (either one person with a lot of traffic, or
many people with low traffic, it doesn't matter). Given high traffic, DDNS
would result in a considerable portion of the DNS cache space (which is
limited and expensive -- moreso than Usenet storage) being eaten up by
records that change _much_ more frequently than the current average TTL.
That means more forward lookups required, which means higher load on DNS
servers around the world. I'd call *that* an "abuse of the public trust".
-Bill Clark
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Don)
Subject: Linux, DSL & 3C509B
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 23:56:40 GMT
Do I need special configuration setup info for Linux??
I recently had a basic DSL line installed using a ALCATEL 1000 adsl
modem. I use a Pentium 200MMX machine running both Linux (Red Hat) and
Windows98.
My network card is a 3C509B.
Everything works great under Windows, but I can't talk to the internet
under Linux.
The 3C509 module is loaded at boot time and appears to be configured
properly. Unfortunatly, Pac Bell DSL is cheap but without Linux
support. USENET reports eth0 is active but neither ping or Netscape
can get through.
Ping works fine for local domain.
As a newbie to linux, you're comments will be appreceated!
donnyr
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
