Linux-Networking Digest #892, Volume #10 Sat, 17 Apr 99 08:13:36 EDT
Contents:
Re: netatalk share file problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
What's supposed to be in UDP port 113? (jmsalvo)
Pop client that runs in either text-mode AND X? (jmsalvo)
WTN: Receipe for Home Networking ("Sam")
Re: Peer-to-Peer Problems (Paul Miles)
Re: What's supposed to be in (now) TCP port 113? (jmsalvo)
Re: What's supposed to be in (now) TCP port 113? ("Curt")
Re: simple gateway function ("Curt")
NEW!!! Get Paid To Surf The Net $$$ (lcs Mixmaster Remailer)
Re: Is this possible? ("Curt")
Re: POP3 port 110 not connecting (Villy Kruse)
Re: IP masquerading ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how do you share a single email address? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Samba/subnets/can't see neighbours (Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCbler?=)
Games and IPX Routing over ethernet (Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCbler?=)
Re: 3 com 3c905b TX network card problems... (Eddy Young)
Re: What's supposed to be in (now) TCP port 113? (jmsalvo)
Re: Running 2 version of Apache simultaneously ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
LinNeighborhood for Debian? (was: Re: Samba works, but does not work (Reyn
EagleStorm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: netatalk share file problem
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Date: 17 Apr 1999 11:45:08 +0100
In comp.os.linux.networking Erix Molinie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I am using Slakware 3.6 with a 2.2.4 Linux kernel with
> the netatalk package included in the Slackware.
> All work fine, except for one thing, when two users tried
> to open the same file they have no special message. So when they
> save the file the last user who saves the file looses changes
> made by the other.
> I don't understand why or where I can see or check.
> Could you please give me some help or any pointers ?
> Thanks in advance for your help
> Best Regards
> Erix
Does password encryption work or you use "clear text" passwords? Hint,
there is a string near password entry field when you connect via aplleshare.
--
Andrey Nikolaev Ulm university,
Department of Biophysics. Germany.
Email: Andrey.Nikolaev@!get-lost-spammer!.uni-ulm.de
Substitute physik instead of !*! .
------------------------------
From: jmsalvo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What's supposed to be in UDP port 113?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 05:29:31 GMT
I have a few logs in /var/log/messages by ipchains that rejected incoming UDP
packets whose destination port (my machine) is 113 and source port (someone's
else machine) is 1421 (or > 1023).
But what's suppose listening on UDP port 113? I know that TCP port 113 is for
ident or auth, but that's TCP.
Thanks,
John Salvo
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: jmsalvo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pop client that runs in either text-mode AND X?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:01:37 GMT
Can anyone recommend a POP client that can do the following:
1. Be used via text-mode 2. Be used via X (either way, the same set of
preferences, config, mailboxes...) 3. Has a utility that can convert mail
from Outlook Express and/or Netscape Navigator ... so that I will not have to
use Outlook Express nor Netscape's mail again.
Thanks,
John Salvo
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: WTN: Receipe for Home Networking
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 19:01:10 +1000
Hi All
I am new to this so please bear with me.
I have recently installed RedHat 5.2 to one of my two PCs. The other one is
running Win98. Both have network cards and I have just brought a 10BaseT
hub. I then installed the Samba RPM from the RedHat CD.
Now can someone please tell me how to make a simple network like this
actually work? Or do I need to run NT Server on the other PC to make it
work?
Thanks
Samantha
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Miles)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Peer-to-Peer Problems
Date: 17 Apr 1999 09:07:30 GMT
I can tell you EXACTLY what your problem is!
The Intel Etherexpress 16 card aparently has some microkernel bugs in it
which are fixed when working under Windows 9x although for some reason (I
forget what) can not be 'worked around' in Linux. It is these bugs that are
causing your kernel to behave the way it is.
If you change your network card, I'm certain everything else will work fine.
I had exactly the same problem until I switched my Etherexpress for a 3com.
Hope this helps
Paul
Final Year CompSci o__
University of Kent _.>/)_ "A fish with a mission"
http://stue1ae.ukc.ac.uk (_) \(_)
------------------------------
From: jmsalvo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's supposed to be in (now) TCP port 113?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 05:46:51 GMT
I made a mistake!!! It was actually TCP port 113. So does that mean that
someone was trying to authenticate himself/herself on my machine???
Are these kind of packets considered hostile??? Given that I only have a
dial-up connection to the Internet???
John Salvo
In article <7f967l$amu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jmsalvo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I have a few logs in /var/log/messages by ipchains that rejected incoming UDP
> packets whose destination port (my machine) is 113 and source port (someone's
> else machine) is 1421 (or > 1023).
>
> But what's suppose listening on UDP port 113? I know that TCP port 113 is for
> ident or auth, but that's TCP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Salvo
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's supposed to be in (now) TCP port 113?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:13:39 -0500
No. I know many IRC servers require a valid ident response to allow a
connection.
jmsalvo wrote in message <7f978a$bhj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I made a mistake!!! It was actually TCP port 113. So does that mean that
>someone was trying to authenticate himself/herself on my machine???
>
>Are these kind of packets considered hostile??? Given that I only have a
>dial-up connection to the Internet???
>
>John Salvo
>
>
>
>In article <7f967l$amu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> jmsalvo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have a few logs in /var/log/messages by ipchains that rejected incoming
UDP
>> packets whose destination port (my machine) is 113 and source port
(someone's
>> else machine) is 1421 (or > 1023).
>>
>> But what's suppose listening on UDP port 113? I know that TCP port 113 is
for
>> ident or auth, but that's TCP.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John Salvo
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: simple gateway function
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:26:34 -0500
Is forwarding turned on? Compiling in the ability to forward doesn't turn
it on by default.
Under RH this is set in /etc/sysconfig/network, or with netcfg.
FORWARD_IPV4=yes
Dieter Stueken wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I installed two ethernet cards to connect two networks.
>route -nr tells me:
>
>Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
>Iface
>192.168.2.4 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
>dummy0
>192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 5
>eth0
>192.168.3.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1
>eth1
>127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 3
>lo
>0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
>eth0
>
>I am able to ping hosts on the 192.168.2.x net and on the 192.168.3.x
>network from the central host (192.168.2.4). But hosts sitting on
>different
>networks can't see each other.
>What gets wrong?
>
>I'm using Linux 2.0.36 and enabled some kernel parameters like:
>CONFIG_IP_FORWARD
>CONFIG_FIREWALL
>CONFIG_IP_FIREWALL
>as they seemed to have anything to do with routing, although we don't
>need any firewalling.
>
>Do we really need some routed now? or something else beyond ifconfig
>and route add -net ...?
>
>Regards, Dieter.
>--
>Dieter St�ken, con terra GmbH, M�nster
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.conterra.de/ http://qgp.uni-muenster.de/~stueken
> (0)251-980-2027 (0)251-83-334974
------------------------------
Date: 17 Apr 1999 09:20:03 -0000
From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NEW!!! Get Paid To Surf The Net $$$
Fellow Surfers.....
If you could get paid to surf the net (like you usually do),
Would you accept the money? Of course you would!
AllAdvantage is the Company that pays people while they
surf the Web ($.50 an hour). It's free to join and it only takes about a
minute (no survey to fill out).
Now you can get paid to do something you already like
to do. Now that's a concept! Now you can be paid to
do just that.
***********************************************************
Goto: http://alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=AVI961
************************************************************
Please remember to enter my membership number when you signup.
AVI-961
This program is:
-FREE to join
-Nothing to buy
-Easy to do
-Hassle Free
Plus you get:
-.50 cents for every hour you're online up to
40 hours per month.
***************************************************************************
Check out the site: http://alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=AVI961
***************************************************************************
Everyone's going to sign up eventually, there's no doubt
about that, they would be stupid not to. They get paid
just for doing something they're already doing.
PLUS: You get paid ..
-.10 cents for every hour people you refer
are on line.
-.05 cents for every hour the people they
refer up to 4 levels.
*************************************************************
Goto: http://alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=AVI961
*************************************************************
Thanks,
Jamee K.
------------------------------
From: "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is this possible?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 05:01:44 -0500
Yep it's possible. Take look at
http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/mini/IP-Masquerade.html
Static IPs are fine.
It would be simpler to host the web server on the same machine as your
connection to
the internet., if you want it to be accessed from the outside. If not it
doesn't matter.
You can run it on an inside system and still make it accessible from the
outside with port
forwarding.
Samba for file and print serving. I'd make sure it was only accessible from
the inside with:
hosts allow = 192.168.0. 127.
in the /etc/smb.conf file. Modified for your network of course.
Obvious advise, get one thing working at a time.
Greg wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I am an addmitted newbie to Linux, and would like to set up the
>following network configuration in my house, if possible. NT server 4.0
>running as PDC, file, print and web server(for offline development
>only), for three client machines. RedHat 5.2 to allow the same 3 client
>machines on demand dial-up access to ISP on one phone line, file, and
>web server(again for offline development only). Client machines are 2
>win95 boxes and 1 dualboot - win95 and RedHat 5.2. Setting up the NT
>domain by itslef is a no-brainer, adding the Linux box is relatively
>easy as well. I have the most questions about using the Linux box for
>dial-up - I'm totally lost as to where I should start. Do the clients
>have to use DHCP or can I issue then static IP's? Would I be better off
>setting up one Linux box to handle dial-up and a second as a web
>server? Are there any obvious blunders I can avoid? Any help in this
>matter will be greatly appreciated.
>
>Greg
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Villy Kruse)
Subject: Re: POP3 port 110 not connecting
Date: 17 Apr 1999 12:16:08 +0200
In article <4BQR2.174$_a6.22895@paloalto-snr1>, Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can anybody think of anything else to check?
For exmaple:
rpm -qi imap
Name : imap Distribution: Manhattan
Version : 4.1.final Vendor: Red Hat Software
Release : 1 Build Date: Tue Jul 14 11:06:31 1998
Install date: Mon Oct 19 14:10:46 1998 Build Host: porky.redhat.com
Group : Networking/Daemons Source RPM: imap-4.1.final-1.src.rpm
Size : 1427874
Packager : Red Hat Software <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Summary : provides support for IMAP and POP network mail protocols
Description :
IMAP is a server for the POP (Post Office Protocol) and IMAP mail protocols.
The POP protocol allows a "post office" machine to collect mail for users
and have that mail downloaded to the user's local machine for reading. The
IMAP protocol provides the functionality of POP, and allows a user to
read mail on a remote machine without moving it to his local mailbox.
Villy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.os2.networking.misc
Subject: Re: IP masquerading
Date: 17 Apr 1999 10:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wonkoo Kim)
I could finally manage Firewall / IP masquerading.
Thanks a lot for the detail answers.
This success was with ppp0 (dial-up modem). I hope I can manage
firewall/IP-masq with eth1 when I get DSL service next week.
Thanks again.
//--------------------------------------------------------------------
// Wonkoo Kim ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how do you share a single email address?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 10:03:36 GMT
Thanks for the suggestion, I think there is a better mechanism via the ability
to have entries in the /etc/aliases file that pipe incoming email to a given
alias to a program. That program could, of course, be a perl script that could
look at the message and mail it to the right user.
I guess I can do that too, I just figured it was likely someone, somewhere has
already figured all this out in more detail that I could.
Thanks for the response.
Peter
In article <7f9c0u$f19$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why rely on anything else when u can do it urself. If u know perl,
> it is only a matter of minutes. I run such a service already. Write
> a little Perl program (but then, it shoudl run with root previleges
> (can u get that!). just have it periodically check ur default redir
> a/c, i.e. the a/c to which all mail with incorrect addresses are
> routed (but correct domain). if it is xxx, then read /var/mail/user/xxx
> or something, and sort accordingly, and then update in /var/mail/user/yyy
> where yyy is the mail a/c of the pseudo user. i think u can do this
> with normal previleges too, but will get restricted functionality...
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCbler?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Samba/subnets/can't see neighbours
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 13:00:18 +0200
Hi
I've got two subnets. Routing over IP works fine.
Subnet1 Subnet2
125.125.1.1 125.125.100.10
125.125.1.52
125.125.1.2 <-> 125.125.100.2 //this is the router
I've activated Wins support and I've added the desired names for the
hosts in lmhosts as well as hosts. On the 100.10 I can see the 1.52 but
the shares aren't available. Samba is v1.9.18 or something like this.
Any suggestions??
Do I net a second workgroup?
Jens
------------------------------
From: Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCbler?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Games and IPX Routing over ethernet
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 13:04:13 +0200
Hi
I've heard that it isn't possible to play games over a isdn interface,
because of osi layers. If a game sends a broadcast to its net how can I
route it to the neighbouring net to make it possible to join a game
Thanx in advance
Jens
------------------------------
From: Eddy Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3 com 3c905b TX network card problems...
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:04:23 +0400
kctiw wrote:
>
> Hi,
> i am a new comer of linux, i have installed redhat 5.2 with kernel ver.
> 2.0.36-0.7. Now i have problem with the 3c905b nic. I read thru quite a
> number of the Qs posted in newsgroup, but none of the suggestion or help are
> understadable to me.
>
> So, to simplify the question, can really this version of linux support for
> 3c905b nic?? Or should i upgrade to the latest version of the kernel??
Kctiw,
I ran in the same problem as you and many of the suggested solutions
in Linux newsgroups did not work. However, after I overwrote the
source '3c59x.c' with an updated version and recompiled, everything
worked fine. I admit this problem gave me some really hard times ;)
Put simply, do the following:
1) dmesg
2) visit the web site shown in the output
3) grab the driver source file
4) recompile kernel
Eddy
------------------------------
From: jmsalvo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's supposed to be in (now) TCP port 113?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 10:55:32 GMT
I did notice that these kind of rejected packets increase when I login to an
IRC server (I still get connected even though my config drops those packets).
But can such packets come from non-IRC servers? I had some packets dropped
from the same source where I am getting an attempt to relay mail through my
dial-up machine.
John Salvo
In article <_gYR2.340$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. I know many IRC servers require a valid ident response to allow a
> connection.
>
> jmsalvo wrote in message <7f978a$bhj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >I made a mistake!!! It was actually TCP port 113. So does that mean that
> >someone was trying to authenticate himself/herself on my machine???
> >
> >Are these kind of packets considered hostile??? Given that I only have a
> >dial-up connection to the Internet???
> >
> >John Salvo
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <7f967l$amu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > jmsalvo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I have a few logs in /var/log/messages by ipchains that rejected incoming
> UDP
> >> packets whose destination port (my machine) is 113 and source port
> (someone's
> >> else machine) is 1421 (or > 1023).
> >>
> >> But what's suppose listening on UDP port 113? I know that TCP port 113 is
> for
> >> ident or auth, but that's TCP.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> John Salvo
> >>
> >> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >>
> >
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.rpm,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
Subject: Re: Running 2 version of Apache simultaneously
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 11:20:29 GMT
In article <7f7mvr$plk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Aldham) wrote:
> This is not quite right. If you are using Apache with SSl in North
> America, you must pay the license fee for the RSA encryption.
Nope. You're *supposed* to pay the license fee, but there is nothing that
_forces_ you to. I'm pretty sure I'm *supposed* to pay the license fee when I
install sshd as well, but that never stopped me from typing `export
USA_RESIDENT=yes` and proceeding with the `make install` anyway.
Am I advocating that people completely ignore the law? You bet your ass I
am. The copyright owners and the US government can all go fuck themselves
over this one for all I care. There's not a damn thing they can do to stop
people from using freely available SSL versions of Apache.
> Buying the commercial packages from RedHat or Covalent does this for you.
Most commercial packages also include a registered key as well, which as I
said before is the *only* good reason to buy a commercial SSL package.
To be honest, I believe that the licensing fee you mentioned may actually be
included in the cost of registering an RSA public key, which makes the whole
problem of using a "free" Apache SSL moot -- the fee would have been paid when
the key was purchased. Can anybody verify whether this is or is not the case?
-Bill Clark
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Reyn EagleStorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LinNeighborhood for Debian? (was: Re: Samba works, but does not work
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 12:20:44 +0200
Richard Torkar wrote:
>
> What error does it give you?
> Try out LinNeighborhood in X.
> http://milkyway.thn.htu.se/~ds98rito
does anybody know if that thing exists for Debian too? on that site
there were only RPMs...
======= __.oOo.__ Reyn EagleStorm ==================== cal044303
====== /'( _ )`\ aka Albert Arendsen =============== icq456629
===== / . \/^\/ . \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] =========== tel. 5050
---- / _)_`-'_(_ \ http://home.student.utwente.nl/a.a.arendsen
--- /.-' ).( `-.\ ------------------------------------------
-- /' /\_/\ `\ ----- The Gods have a sense of humor ----
- "-V-" ----- So be sure not to lose yours -----
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
