Linux-Networking Digest #792, Volume #10 Thu, 8 Apr 99 19:13:32 EDT
Contents:
Re: Home networking survey ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Automate Password Changes in Samba (Thomas Beardshear)
thanks & ??? ("Mike")
Re: Using ipchains to block ICQ. (mist)
Re: Noticing a pattern: Red Hat + ethernet + 3c509 family = net unreachable...
("Charles Leeds")
Accessing Linux server remotely (Dereks2nd)
Re: SMTP really slow! (Bernd Eckenfels)
Re: Multilink PPP/MP 0.9 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Switching hubs question? (Andy Osborne)
Re: samba sharing to Win95/WinNT; advice? (Kevin Martin)
samba sharing to Win95/WinNT; advice? ("Daniel G. Hyams")
Re: Ifconfig and strange results (Bernd Eckenfels)
Re: pppd problem (Clifford Kite)
Re: Stable Linux versions ("D. C. Sessions")
Re: Defaultroute : How do i get it away for etho for ppp ("Curt")
Re: firewalls (ie: fwtk) vs. Ip Masquerading... ("Curt")
Re: samba sharing to Win95/WinNT; advice? (Alex Turner)
Re: Recommend Fast Ethernet Card (Stuart R. Fuller)
CGI won�t work (Schwarz Hans)
Re: Stable Linux versions ("Ronny Adsetts")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.networking.misc
Subject: Re: Home networking survey
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 20:50:08 GMT
On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:15:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob
Wiese) wrote:
>>9. Did you experience any significant problems while networking your
>>home?
>
>My wife was mad because I didnt make her an Admin :-)
>
yours too huh. I finally gave in bacause I got tired of her calling
me at work to kill the crashed netscape on linux. ( at least I gave
her a shell account and showed her the kill -9 so she thinks so..:-)
she was restricted to X because she had no shell
------------------------------
From: Thomas Beardshear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Automate Password Changes in Samba
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 21:19:15 GMT
Does anyone have any ideas on how to automate changing passwords when
using a password server with Samba? Currently, we have to use passwd and
smbpasswd on the current server; then telnet to the password server and
change the samba password there too.
I realize swat allows you to change passwords, but that's still 3
passwords to change (for new users at least) which means 3 sessions
--
Shurflo does not accept responsibility for any views expressed or
implied
in the text or graphics of this email response/inquiry. I don't either.
Thomas
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: thanks & ???
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:32:16 -0700
------------------------------
From: mist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using ipchains to block ICQ.
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:32:18 +0100
Reply-To: mist <new$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robbert Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribed to us that -
<snip>
>in the most icq clients you can set the port by hand ,( done it before on
>our school port 53 works perfect ( dns )
>
Blimey. I hope everyone isn't going around putting icq onto port 53.
That surely gets enough load as it is....
--
Mist.
------------------------------
From: "Charles Leeds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Noticing a pattern: Red Hat + ethernet + 3c509 family = net unreachable...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:34:45 -0400
When you say you can't ping yourself, are you pinging 127.0.0.1 and that
isn't working? Or are you pinging your IP address?
I don't know about the 3c509 card. The 3c90x's definitely work great.
Intel Etherexpress 16's are a total disaster. SMC cards work great...
Charles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nonya Bidness wrote in message <7egvdc$9m3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Read some of the posts lately. I have been having a problem connected to
>the internet. I dual boot and the net works fine with Win98. Linux has
the
>card recognized, it is activated. I can ping myself. I can NOT get out to
>the net. I have the 3c509 card family and can't reach the nameservers.
>unreachable???
>what is the deal? I am headed to check Red Hat's page for any help...just
>wanted to point this out if anyone is noticing PLEASE help us out...we are
>becoming a mass epidemic.
>Thanks!
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dereks2nd)
Subject: Accessing Linux server remotely
Date: 8 Apr 1999 22:07:31 GMT
I now have a working network, Using windows 98 workstations to a REDHAT Linux
server. I now wish to dial into the linux server from a remote location.
Q ) What do I use on Linux server to enable dial in ?
Q ) Can I use Dial up networking on the Win98 workstation thats trying to
dial in ?
My Linux box is configured to :-
Act as DNS Server
Allow Encripted passwords on Win98 workstations on the LAN ( and it works )
Uses PPP for dial out access to Internet
I Use Samba 2.0.3 for network handling
Acts as a print server
Derek
------------------------------
From: Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMTP really slow!
Date: 8 Apr 1999 22:12:33 GMT
Peter Tibbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strangely too, all other TCP/IP connections work fine and fast
> with my linux box.
Have you tried outgoing connection with other protocols? If uploads or
sending smtp is slow this is most of the time a sign for a missconfigured
modem. You should enable hardware handshake at the modem and at the pppd.
Try looking in the syslog for messages of broken packages or at the ifconfig
counters for errors... guess u will find some.
Another option can be trouble with path mtu discovery. Try to set the mtu
(mss) of the PPP interface to something like 256.
Greetings
Bernd
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multilink PPP/MP 0.9
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 22:06:11 GMT
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 05:20:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fredrick
DeQuan Lee) wrote:
>
wheres the message man....I've been waiting for over a year for mp-ppp
for linux to be implemented. I have the last version that only half
works under kernel 2.1.37.
------------------------------
From: Andy Osborne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switching hubs question?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 22:10:51 GMT
MegaSurge wrote:
>
> I don't know much about switching hubs and I was wondering what kind of
> performance would I see if I used them? I currently have 2 servers with
> 70 user workstations running over a 10Mbit network. (Yes, that would be
> ten.) I know, I know. Anyway, two of my four hubs can be turned into
> switching hubs but would it be worth my wilds to spend the couple grand to
> do this? I mean, how much network performance improvement would I see?
> Please send me any information/links/comments/or experiencing possible so
> that I can make my decision. Thank You.
>
> "If there is a *quintessential zone of human privacy* it is the mind."
Hello MegaSurge,
It strikes me that your bottleneck will be the 10MB links to the server.
Assuming there is not alot of peer to peer traffic (that would really
change things) your best bet for a performance at reasonable cost
increase would be to upgrade the server connections to 100mb. Since if
you are running client-server nearly all packets will be either going to
or from the servers and swithing alone will not help this.
The easiest way to do this will proberbly be to add a switch with at
least 2 100MB connections and then as many 10MB connections to your
other hubs as you need. Your bottleneck will then have shifted to the
switch to hub links.
Assuming you are using < 24 port hubs these connections will now only be
servicing 23 users instead of 70!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.smb
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: samba sharing to Win95/WinNT; advice?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 22:21:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, it
says "Daniel G. Hyams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am going to set up a linux box to serve files to one Win95 box
>and one WinNT4 box (when they are running Windows at all :).
>
>Should the files being served to the Windows boxes reside
>on a vfat partition on the linux box, of ext2fs? Or does
>it matter? Advantages or disadvantages?
Are you maybe thinking that the Windows boxes are accessing the partitions
directly, so that they somehow 'need' to be vfat...? No, that is not the
case.
Files are a stream of bits. SMB presents the stream of bits the way
Billware expects to see it / them. That's its job. On the Linux side,
storing everything as ext2 is the way to go.
(I once copied 600MB from a Win95 box to ext2fs and it shrunk to less than
400MB according to 'du'. That was an eye-opener! I kept looking for the
'missing' data until I finally twigged to what was going on.)
BTW -- isn't the protocols group for the folks who are doing development,
rather than setup questions? Sorry for the intrusion, followsup set.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel G. Hyams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.smb
Subject: samba sharing to Win95/WinNT; advice?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:26:20 -0500
I am going to set up a linux box to serve files to one Win95 box
and one WinNT4 box (when they are running Windows at all :).
Should the files being served to the Windows boxes reside
on a vfat partition on the linux box, of ext2fs? Or does
it matter? Advantages or disadvantages?
===========================================================
Daniel G. Hyams
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: (601) 323-4198
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ifconfig and strange results
Date: 8 Apr 1999 22:21:35 GMT
Heath Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it normal ??
The counters are wrong. What is the output of ifconfig -V and netstat -i?
Greetings
Bernd
------------------------------
From: kite@NoSpam.%inetport.com (Clifford Kite)
Subject: Re: pppd problem
Date: 8 Apr 1999 11:56:45 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: pppd simply refuses to make a connection, i have tried 4 isps (they work fine
: with windows dun). what should i do ? i have edited the ppp-on-dialer file
: accordingly for each isp (whether it should expect a login prompt or not) i'm
: using the doslinux distribution (can't remember which version, but i suppose
: it's the latest) PLease help,this is driving me crazy
: isp 1: Apr 7 01:45:05 (none) chat[127]: CONNECT Apr 7 01:45:05 (none)
: chat[127]: -- got it Apr 7 01:45:05 (none) chat[127]: send (^M) Apr 7
: 01:45:05 (none) pppd[126]: Serial connection established. Apr 7 01:45:06
: (none) pppd[126]: Using interface ppp0 Apr 7 01:45:06 (none) pppd[126]:
: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0 Apr 7 01:45:06 (none) pppd[126]: sent [LCP
: ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x20a0000> <auth chap MD5> <magic 0x5d3e51cb>
You are asking the ISP to authenticate itself to YOU. Not likely. Don't
ask the ISP to authenticate itself to you. See "man pppd"
: <pcomp> <accomp>] Apr 7 01:45:06 (none) pppd[126]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x1
: <mru 1524> <asyncmap 0xa0000> <auth pap> <pcomp> <accomp> < 13 09 03 00 c0 7b
: 81 8d 0f>] Apr 7 01:45:06 (none) pppd[126]: sent [LCP ConfRej id=0x1 <auth
: pap> < 13 09 03 00 c0 7b 81 8d 0f>] Apr 7 01:45:06 (none) pppd[126]: rcvd
The ISP offers PAP to authenticate yourself to it. You reject this.
Configure pppd to authenticate with PAP. See "man pppd"
: [LCP ConfRej id=0x1 <auth chap MD5>] Apr 7 01:45:06 (none) pppd[126]: sent
The ISP refuses to authenticate itself to you using CHAP.
: [LCP ConfReq id=0x2 <asyncmap 0x20a0000> <magic 0x5d3e51cb> <pcomp> <accomp>]
: Apr 7 01:45:07 (none) pppd[126]: rcvd [LCP TermReq id=0x2] Apr 7 01:45:07
: (none) pppd[126]: sent [LCP TermAck id=0x2] Apr 7 01:45:09 (none) pppd[126]:
The ISP request LCP termination, pppd agrees. No surprise.
..
: isp 2: Apr 7 01:21:52 (none) chat[121]: CONNECT Apr 7 01:21:52 (none)
: chat[121]: -- got it Apr 7 01:21:52 (none) chat[121]: send (^M) Apr 7
: 01:21:52 (none) pppd[120]: Serial connection established. Apr 7 01:21:53
: (none) pppd[120]: Using interface ppp0 Apr 7 01:21:53 (none) pppd[120]:
: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0 Apr 7 01:21:53 (none) pppd[120]: sent [LCP
: ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x20a0000> <magic 0x60fff516> <pcomp> <accomp>] Apr
: 7 01:21:53 (none) pppd[120]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x9c <asyncmap 0xa0000>
: <auth chap MD5> <magic 0x8cb32594> <pcomp> <accomp>] Apr 7 01:21:53 (none)
: pppd[120]: sent [LCP ConfRej id=0x9c <auth chap MD5>] Apr 7 01:21:53 (none)
The ISP offers CHAP to authenticate yourself to it. You refuse. This goes
on and on. Pppd finally asks to terminate and the ISP agrees. Configure
pppd to authenticate with CHAP. See "man pppd"
..
: isp 3: May 3 20:43:01 (none) chat[359]: CONNECT May 3 20:43:01 (none)
: chat[359]: -- got it May 3 20:43:01 (none) chat[359]: send (^M) May 3
You need to replace the chat expect/send CONNECT '' with CONNECT '\d\c'
to get rid of the extra carriage return that the first form sends and
which sometimes confuses the ISP. "man chat" for what \d and \c mean.
: 20:43:01 (none) chat[359]: expect (ogin:) May 3 20:43:01 (none) chat[359]:
: 38400/K56/LAPM/V42BIS/28800:TX/52000:RX^M May 3 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]:
: AlgoNet / Telenordia Internet^M May 3 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]: ^M May 3
: 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]: ^M May 3 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]: Login: May 3
: 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]: -- got it May 3 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]: send
: (xxxxxxxxxx^M) May 3 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]: expect (assword:) May 3
: 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]: xxxxxxxx^M May 3 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]:
: Password: May 3 20:43:03 (none) chat[359]: -- got it May 3 20:43:03 (none)
: chat[359]: send (xxxxxx^M) May 3 20:43:03 (none) pppd[358]: Serial
: connection established. May 3 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: Using interface
: ppp0 May 3 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0 May 3
: 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x20a0000>
: <magic 0x8f65de1a> <pcomp> <accomp>] May 3 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: rcvd
: [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x20a0000> <magic 0x8f65de1a> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Look at the magic numbers. Pppd is talking to itself, not the ISP.
This could be caused by any one of the following:
The extra carriage return mentioned above confusing the ISP.
A bad login name or password.
The ISP needs some entry after the password to start ppp running there.
An example would be simply "ppp" but this will vary widely for ISPs
that do need something extra. It can also be a menu selection.
An ISP that presents a login/password prompt that some can use and
others cannot. In this case the ISP is usually expecting those that
cannot to use PAP (or CHAP) authentication.
A chat script that terminates in some peculiar way.
The modem entering a loopback mode due to a AT command profile
misconfiguration.
It's a sure bet that this list is not all inclusive.
: May 3 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: sent [LCP ConfNak id=0x1 <magic
: 0x7babe6c3>] May 3 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: rcvd [LCP ConfNak id=0x1
: <magic 0x7babe6c3>] May 3 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: sent [LCP ConfReq
: id=0x2 <asyncmap 0x20a0000> <magic 0x373e8f2f> <pcomp> <accomp>] May 3
: 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x2 <asyncmap 0x20a0000>
: <magic 0x373e8f2f> <pcomp> <accomp>] May 3 20:43:04 (none) pppd[358]: sent
: [LCP ConfNak id=0x2 <magic 0x72fb8934>] May 3 20:43:05 (none) pppd[358]:
: rcvd [LCP ConfNak id=0x1 <magic 0x7babe6c3>] May 3 20:43:07 (none)
: pppd[358]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x2 <asyncmap 0x20a0000> <magic 0x373e8f2f>
: <pcomp> <accomp>] May 3 20:43:31 (none) last message repeated 8 times May 3
: 20:43:34 (none) pppd[358]: LCP: timeout sending Config-Requests
Please use something (The utility "unix2dos" comes to mind.) to translate
the logs from *nix EOLs to MS EOLs before posting them from an MS box.
--
Clifford Kite <kite@inet%port.com> Not a guru. (tm)
/* Governments should be changed like diapers - often and for the
* same reason. */
------------------------------
From: "D. C. Sessions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stable Linux versions
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:26:13 -0700
Joseph Tweed wrote:
>
> Up to now, just about everyone has been using Linux kernel V2.0.36. This
> I think was the last stable version. Now it seems as if V2.2.5 is stable
> also, which means that people using 2.0.36 will want to migrate to
> 2.2.5.
> This brings up a question: Is there any documentation on the differences
> between stable versions of Linux? This will help to answer the question:
> "What will I gain by migrating from 2.0.36 to 2.2.5?".
Urrrgh. Several useful utilities (for instance diald) won't run
on 2.2.x without library updates (glibc etc.) that break other
software.
The kernel itself may be stable, but there's more to a system
than kernel stability.
--
D. C. Sessions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Defaultroute : How do i get it away for etho for ppp
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:19:18 -0500
It would appear that you have a default route set to your internal network
interface.
If so, why? Just have a net route to your local netork, and define the
default route as 0.0.0.0
so when you get your ppp connection it can substitue the assigned IP.
netstat -rn should look something like before you get your ppp connection:
$ netstat -rn
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
Iface
192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 1500 0 0
eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 3584 0
0 lo
then after you get your ppp connection:
$ netstat -rn
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
Iface
206.53.240.xxx 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 1500 0 0
ppp0
192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 1500 0
0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 3584 0
0 lo
0.0.0.0 206.53.240.xxx 0.0.0.0 UG 1500 0
0 ppp0
Hope this helps.
Eric F. Boddie wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi All,
>
>I setup a linux box to do ipmasqing. Everything works fine until I dail
>the internet provider. As long as I dont have the default gateway and
>the default gateway device set I can get out. I dont get:
>
>pppd[559] not replacing existing default route to eth0 [192.xx.xx.xx]
>
>I am sure that I need the gateway so that I can have my winbloz clients
>be able to get out on the net. I have done this before and we have 3
>machines calling out thru a linux box. I just cant seem to get this one
>to do it.
>
>I have posted earlier in a post called [ Can I stop screamming now ppp]:
>that tells a little more about what I have been doing. I just dont have
>the strength to retype it
>I am using
>Redhat 5.2
>Pentium 90
>56k modem
>16 meg ram
>2.5 gig
>
>The only thing the machine will be used for is conneting to the net and
>serving windows clients. Any help would be appreciated.
>TIA
>
------------------------------
From: "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: firewalls (ie: fwtk) vs. Ip Masquerading...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:46:34 -0500
The choice is somewhat subjective, but here is some info.
IP masq operates at the IP level, a simplified NAT( Network address
translation)
IP forwarding is on in this case. The fact that most people use
non-internet-routable IPs behind the IP masq firewall actually increases
it's security some.
Socks operates at the transport layer (TCP). Forwarding must be off to
accomplish a firewall.
IMO this can give a more secure setup. However, all clients must be
'sockified', with sockscaps or some other wrapper. Many clients support
socks already, netscape, IE, MIRC...
www.socks.nec.com
It is generally more work to setup socks than IP masq, and you'll find alot
more people know
IP masq than socks.
I use socks for the network connection that is up 24/7 and IP masq when the
connection is
on demand.
The most important part of security is shutting down unneeded services to
the outside.
You should at least limit those able to connect from the outside with
/etc/hosts.allow, and
use ssh versions of telnetd and pop3d to keep passwords from going out on
the internet
in clear text.
The second most important part of security if vigilance it keeping up with
security fixes
and monitoring for attacks.
I can't comment on FWTK, I've not used it.
Hope this helps, there is not a simple answer.
Eric wrote in message <3k7P2.1862$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Sorry 'bout the addendum, but I guess my question boils down to:
>
> why would I choose something like FWTK or as SOCKS proxy server over IP
>Masquerading?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Eric
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Alex Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.smb
Subject: Re: samba sharing to Win95/WinNT; advice?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 17:43:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel G. Hyams wrote:
> I am going to set up a linux box to serve files to one Win95 box
> and one WinNT4 box (when they are running Windows at all :).
>
> Should the files being served to the Windows boxes reside
> on a vfat partition on the linux box, of ext2fs? Or does
> it matter? Advantages or disadvantages?
>
I'm no guru, but I've got a home LAN going using samba with one Win95
Box and one Linux box.
If you create an account on the Linux box for each person using the Win
box then the default behaviour under Samba that comes with RH5.2 is that
it will mount their home directory when they log on to the network from
the Win box with the files on the ext2 partition.
If you create files on the ext2 partition they will be subject to the
same access as they are on the Linux box. IMHO this is a _good_ idea.
Hope this helps some
Alex T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart R. Fuller)
Subject: Re: Recommend Fast Ethernet Card
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 22:00:31 GMT
Bill Anderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Jon Slater wrote:
: >
: > Can anyone recommend a fast PCI Ethernet card for Linux?
: >
: > Thanks!
: > --
: > Jon D. Slater QualComm Inc.
: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6150 Lookout Road
: > Phone: (303) 247-5037 Boulder, Colorado
: > Fax: (303) 247-5167 80301
:
: Sure can. I reccomend a fast NIC card over a slow one any day! :-)
:
: Seriously, I use a SYMBIOS combination wide-scsi and 10/100 that runs
: great for me.
: AFAIK, there is but the one, IIRC, it is an 875.
: Saves on PCI slots, too ;-)
Do you have a manufacturer, model, dealer, etc? I'm out of PCI slots, and
need to add a SCSI controller. This would work out great!
Stu
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Schwarz Hans)
Subject: CGI won�t work
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:59:11 +0200
Hello all,
Im running Apache 1.3.4 and tried to set up cgi for the Server and my
virtuell hosts, but it wont work. I�ve set up the Script Alias in my
virtuell hosts like that:
ScriptAlias /cgi-domainname/ /path/to/cgi-bin/
and I did the same in the server-config-section in my httpd.conf. I also got
the Option and AllowOverride directives setted to "All"
The error_log gives me two messages
1. Could not found File or directory - Why??????
2. Premature end of script headers - What the hell means that ????
I checked the FAQ on the apache.org but I dont no what they mean for sure.
Can anyone help?
Thank you very much
Hans-J�rgen
------------------------------
From: "Ronny Adsetts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stable Linux versions
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:31:03 +0100
Simon Pallister wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>by no means a definitive answer but one reason I am about to upgrade is
>because 2.2.x supports IPChains and 2.0.x uses the inferior ipfwadm.
>
>Unless anyone more technically competent can say otherwise, I believe this
>to be the case
>
I also believe this to be the case. I have it working with kernel 2.2.1, but
will upgrade ot 2.2.5 'cos I like having the latest, go faster stripes,
version!!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
