Linux-Networking Digest #277, Volume #12 Wed, 18 Aug 99 20:13:34 EDT
Contents:
Re: Who has diald working really? ("Robert C. Paulsen, Jr.")
Re: Faster Internet Connection (Robert J. Sprawls)
PPPD behaving strangely (Lindsay Patton)
Re: Linux driver for 3Com card (Roy Grimm)
Re: Exchange server clone for Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
repost solution to: "why it takes 20years to telnet to RedHat Linux" (Lindoze 2000)
Doing a linux project ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Problems with EEPRO.O driver for Linux (Joseph Wyatt)
Re: Routing a 2nd real IP addr on a home net (dmalcolm)
Re: mail routing for wrong/unknown users ("Cowles, Steve")
Re: repost solution to: "why it takes 20years to telnet to RedHat Linux" (H.Bruijn)
Re: Netscape hangs if not connected to network (Scott McEachern)
Re: DSL IP-address question (Scott McEachern)
Re: Transparent firewall - any such thing? (Miguel Cruz)
Re: Ethernet Channel bonding ("Gary")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert C. Paulsen, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who has diald working really?
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:48:02 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> OK, is there anyone out there who has gotten diald to work (with no
> phantom dials from netbios et al) without making a DNS on their
> network? Assuming there is some golden child out there who has done
> this feat, I have a request...
>
> 1. Please post your diald rules (standard.filter)
> 2. If you had to change your firewall - please post the specific
> ipfwadm/ipchains you used
> 3. Please, please, please reply to this post.
>
> If I can get this to work I will write up the docs so no one else will
> have to go through this hell :)
>
> By the way, I am not afraid of running my own DNS, it just doesn't
> seem right that I have to run a DNS just to get around some facist
> Gatesian packets (udp netbios) infecting my pure Linux machine.
I have successfully "beaten" Windows into submission without running DNS.
My filter rules are included below. I think all the things changed from
the original are marked with my initials (RCP).
The diald filter rules are enough to keep Win95/98 in check but I still
have a problem with a WIn2000 beta. I had to include a few ipchains rules
to fix that (the fix is overkill since the Win2000 system is effectively
cut off from the internet). The ipchain rules are also included below.
diald filters:
===========================================================================
# --- start of rule set proper ---
# When initiating a connection we only give the link 15 seconds initially.
# The idea here is to deal with possibility that the network on the opposite
# end of the connection is unreachable. In this case you don't really
# want to give the link 10 minutes up time. With the rule below
# we only give the link 15 seconds initially. If the network is reachable
# then we will normally get a response that actually contains some
# data within 15 seconds. If this causes problems because you have a slow
# response time at some site you want to regularly access, you can either
# increase the timeout or remove this rule.
accept tcp 30 tcp.syn
# Keep named xfers from holding the link up
ignore tcp tcp.dest=tcp.domain
ignore tcp tcp.source=tcp.domain
# (Ack! SCO telnet starts by sending empty SYNs and only opens the
# connection if it gets a response. Sheesh..)
accept tcp 5 ip.tot_len=40,tcp.syn
# keep empty packets from holding the link up (other than empty SYN packets)
ignore tcp ip.tot_len=40,tcp.live
# make sure http transfers hold the link for 2 minutes, even after they end.
# NOTE: Your /etc/services may not define the tcp service www, in which
# case you should comment out the following two lines or get a more
# up to date /etc/services file. See the FAQ for information on obtaining
# a new /etc/services file.
accept tcp 600 tcp.dest=tcp.www
accept tcp 600 tcp.source=tcp.www
# Once the link is no longer live, we try to shut down the connection
# quickly. Note that if the link is already down, a state change
# will not bring it back up.
keepup tcp 5 !tcp.live
ignore tcp !tcp.live
# an ftp-data or ftp connection can be expected to show reasonably frequent
# traffic.
accept tcp 600 tcp.dest=tcp.ftp
accept tcp 600 tcp.source=tcp.ftp
#NOTE: ftp-data is not defined in the /etc/services file provided with
# the latest versions of NETKIT, so I've got this commented out here.
# If you want to define it add the following line to your /etc/services:
# ftp-data 20/tcp
# and uncomment the following two rules.
#accept tcp 120 tcp.dest=tcp.ftp-data
#accept tcp 120 tcp.source=tcp.ftp-data
# If we don't catch it above, give the link 10 minutes up time.
accept tcp 600 any
# Rules for UDP packets
#
# We time out domain requests right away, we just want them to bring
# the link up, not keep it around for very long.
# This is because the network will usually come up on a call
# from the resolver library (unless you have all your commonly
# used addresses in /etc/hosts, in which case you will discover
# other problems.)
# Note that you should not make the timeout shorter than the time you
# might expect your DNS server to take to respond. Otherwise
# when the initial link gets established there might be a delay
# greater than this between the initial series of packets before
# any packets that keep the link up longer pass over the link.
# Don't bring the link up for rwho.
ignore udp udp.dest=udp.who
ignore udp udp.source=udp.who
# Don't bring the link up for RIP.
ignore udp udp.dest=udp.route
ignore udp udp.source=udp.route
# Don't bring the link up for NTP or timed.
ignore udp udp.dest=udp.ntp
ignore udp udp.source=udp.ntp
ignore udp udp.dest=udp.timed
ignore udp udp.source=udp.timed
# Don't bring up on domain name requests between two running nameds.
ignore udp udp.dest=udp.domain,udp.source=udp.domain
# Bring up the network whenever we make a domain request from someplace
# other than named.
# RCP changed the following two from 30 to 600
accept udp 600 udp.dest=udp.domain
accept udp 600 udp.source=udp.domain
# Do the same for netbios-ns broadcasts
# NOTE: your /etc/services file may not define the netbios-ns service
# in which case you should comment out the next three lines.
ignore udp udp.source=udp.netbios-ns,udp.dest=udp.netbios-ns
# RCP next two changed from accept 30 to ignore by SuSE ( see prolog)
ignore udp udp.dest=udp.netbios-ns
ignore udp udp.source=udp.netbios-ns
# RCP Added these (7/27/99):
ignore tcp tcp.source=tcp.netbios-ns,tcp.dest=tcp.netbios-ns
ignore tcp tcp.source=tcp.netbios-dgm,tcp.dest=tcp.netbios-dgm
ignore tcp tcp.source=tcp.netbios-ssn,tcp.dest=tcp.netbios-ssn
ignore udp udp.source=udp.netbios-ns,udp.dest=udp.netbios-ns
ignore udp udp.source=udp.netbios-dgm,udp.dest=udp.netbios-dgm
ignore udp udp.source=udp.netbios-ssn,udp.dest=udp.netbios-ssn
# keep routed and gated transfers from holding the link up
ignore udp tcp.dest=udp.route
ignore udp tcp.source=udp.route
# Anything else gest 2 minutes.
# RCP changed to 10 min
accept udp 600 any
# Catch any packets that we didn't catch above and give the
# connection 30 seconds of live time.
# RCP changed the following from 30 sec to 10 min...
accept any 600 any
===================================================================
ipchains rules (cut/pasted from "ipchains -nL"):
Chain input (policy ACCEPT):
REJECT tcp ------ 192.168.0.102 0.0.0.0/0 * -> 53
REJECT udp ------ 192.168.0.102 0.0.0.0/0 * -> 53
REJECT tcp ------ 192.168.0.102 0.0.0.0/0 * -> 137:139
REJECT udp ------ 192.168.0.102 0.0.0.0/0 * -> 137:139
(192.168.0.102 is the pesky Win2000 system that won't shut up.)
I think the udp rule for port 53 is the only one really needed.
--
____________________________________________________________________
Robert Paulsen http://paulsen.home.texas.net
If my return address contains "ZAP." please remove it. Sorry for the
inconvenience but the unsolicited email is getting out of control.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J. Sprawls)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Faster Internet Connection
Date: 18 Aug 1999 22:59:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:25:28 +0000, David Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I need a faster internet connection. Cable modems will be available in
>my area in another year, but I don't really want to wait that long, plus
>I've heard some not great things about cable modems.
>Is ISDN the answer? Is it cost effective? How well does it work with
>Linux and which ISDN modems work best with Linux if any?
>Any imput in this area would be appreciated.
That depends on your needs. ISDN modems are nearing the price of
regular modems, but they still incur a $100-$200 monthly charge on top
of your normal phone bill. So you decide for yourself if it's cost
effective.
Robert
------------------------------
From: Lindsay Patton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PPPD behaving strangely
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:12:01 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wise ones:
I have just installed Redhat 6.0 and am having trouble getting PPP to
run with my ISP at 56K. I can dial into a 33K modem pool and all is
fine.
When I try the 56 CHAT is happy and PPPD reports that he has
established
a link. Within 5-10 seconds pppd reports the modem has disconnected
and
I see no texts with send/receive IP adresses as I do when the 33K
syncs up.
The 56K dialin server has a different welcome banner 3 lines (vs. 2
for the 33)
and a different textual announcement of the send/receive IP
addresses. I am
able to dialin with minicom and sit for 20+ seconds before my ISP
drops me for not
negotiating the PPP startup (I guess).
Anyone help on this one, Redhat says "they don't support configuration
issues": so
what did I pay for, anyway?
Thanks in advance/
------------------------------
From: Roy Grimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux driver for 3Com card
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 15:12:47 -0500
"P.A. Grant" wrote:
>
> This is my first time in this ng, so please forgive me for asking. I am
> looking for a Linux driver for a 3Com 3C90X card. Can anyone help me with
> this? thanks in advance.
> -------
> PG
It should come with your distribution, providing it's relatively
recent. When I got my 3C905, I had to download a patch to go with my
2.0.35 kernel (Slackware 3.? I forget which). That was a few years
ago and I believe the code has been integrated into the release. Any
2.2.x kernel should have it already.
Roy
--
"If it ain't broke, you're not tryin!" - Red Green
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Exchange server clone for Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:20:29 GMT
>If you would like the Workgroup capabilities for this and use outlook,
>then you should use OpenMail from HP (wich has been ported to Linux
>recntly).
>The server is free, but a client connection costs arround 60 dollars.
Interesting.
I will check it out and be back with questions I'm
sure. <G>
Thanks!
=========
John
------------------------------
From: Lindoze 2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: repost solution to: "why it takes 20years to telnet to RedHat Linux"
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:00:55 -0400
can someone please repost the solution to why it takes 2minutes to
telnet to
RedHat dist.?
--
Thank you for your valuable input. Your useful answers will benifit
other users as well.
You are Linux!
########################################################
## ##
## My Experiment ##
## http://www.FusionPlant.com ##
## ##
########################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Doing a linux project
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:01:12 GMT
Hi all,
Now surely this may have been asked before, but the
FAQ pointed me to a web site that no longer existed.
My question is, how does one get started on a linux kernel
project?
i.e. Who coordinates everything, what are the projects
that need to be done for the next release etc etc. If
someone could point me to a web site or such
that has all this info that would be great.
Many Thanks,
Subud
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Joseph Wyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problems with EEPRO.O driver for Linux
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:10:31 -0500
I have a Compaq Elite 486 Dx4/75 Notebook that is set in a docking station
with a Ethernet interface built into the docking station. Because of this
I tried every driver I could find and none would work. I found out through
looking in the Windows '95 Registry (by the way, the card works perfect in
Windows) that Windows was using a driver for the Intel Etherexpress Pro.
I had installed the new version of Redhat 6.0 on this machine, and I chose
the eepro.o module for the network card. Everything comes up fine, and the
network software initializes everything fine, and doesn't complain.
However, when I try to reach another server on my network, I cannot. I do
a ping test and I can see the packets going out to the hub and to the
server I am pinging, but nothing seems to come back. When I try to do a
ping test to the Compaq machine from another server, again I can see my
packets going out over the network, but the Comapq never sees the incoming
traffic, and so it doesn't respond. I noticed something unusual also,
whenever I shutdown the machine, and the shutdown script does a "ifconfig
eth0 down", I get a message "eth0: set Rx to 1 address", which I have
never seen before on any of the 7 other servers on the network. Somehow
the data being received through the Ethernet Card is not being passed to
the machine. Is there something wrong with the way I set things up? I used
the following commands to install the module:
"insmod /lib//modules/2.2.5-15/net/eepro.o io=0x300 irq=3"
By the way , what should the value for the "mem" setting in the options
list be when installing the driver. I could not find documentation
on this anywhere, so I do not even include this option when I load the
driver. I wonder if this could be my problem? Could anyone give me some
insight as to what the acceptable values are, or how I can find out? Any
help you could give me would be greatly appreciated. There may be other
problems, as this is Compaq's implementation of the card.
Thanks,
Joe Wyatt
------------------------------
From: dmalcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Routing a 2nd real IP addr on a home net
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:00:05 -0500
Tiger wrote:
> < If this message appeared already.. my apologies. I think it got
> eaten, I waited a good 3 hours to be sure... >
>
> Okay, here's a situation that's not so common... There's a lot of
> background here, the question is relatively short (see the bottom.)
>
> Existing setup: Cablemodem to linux server (with valid external IP
> addr), which masquerades for 3 internal hosts on a 10.0.0.0 network.
>
> cablemodem
> | (external X.Y.Z.A)
> NIC1
> server
> NIC2
> / \ (10.0.0.0)
> comp1 comp2 ....
>
> I want to purchase an additional IP address from my ISP, for use on one
> of the internal hosts. (Preferably, any single one at a given time.)
>
> The described setup provided by the ISP for 2 IP addr's at one house is
> this:
>
> cablemodem
> |
> hub
> / \
> comp1 comp2
> IP#1 IP#2
>
> This implies that the cablemodem broadcasts everything it hears on the
> cable network onto the local ethernet. comp1 and comp2, configured
> properly, listen for datagrams destined for each of their IP addresses,
> similarly they send datagrams originating from their IP addresses.
>
> Problem: I want to leave the topology the same: CM through server to
> internal hosts. I want to masquerade for 2 boxes on the 10.0.0.0 net,
> and simply forward (incoming and outgoing) for whichever box is
> configured to use the new, provided IP address.
>
> Complication: While I can grasp the forwarding rules, in general, my
> understanding falls short with respect to whether packets must be
> addressed to gateways.
> - I want the server to forward packets destined for the *specific IP
> address* from the crossover from the cablemodem to the internal network.
> However, this IP address may not be on the same subnet. Nor does any
> outside router know to send it to the server as a gateway.
>
> Question: Can this linux server (2.0.3x kernel) be configured so that it
> will listen for packets destined for this new IP address, and forward
> them onto the local network, nomatter whether it is in a different
> subnet, nor if this packet is being routed directly to that IP, without
> being sent to the server as a gateway? Anything I should be aware of?
> Does this behaviour take place automatically if the forwarding rules are
> set up on the server?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --Chris
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I think the answere is YES. I also think there may be some caviats. The new
IP should have a different network address than your old assigned IP. I
think that will be required for proper routing. I have seen messages on
this news group that indicate that more than one IP can be assigned to a
NIC, but I am not sure of the HOW. Probably makes use of 'ifconfig'.
------------------------------
From: "Cowles, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail routing for wrong/unknown users
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:07:15 -0500
You might want to try uncommenting this line in the /etc/sendmail.cf file.
# who (if anyone) should get extra copies of error messages
#O PostMasterCopy=Postmaster
Steve Cowles
SWCowles at gte dot net
Tony Maddux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What is the proper way to route mail that comes into our domain with an
> incorrect or misspelled user to an administrative account??
>
> T.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H.Bruijn)
Subject: Re: repost solution to: "why it takes 20years to telnet to RedHat Linux"
Date: 18 Aug 1999 23:19:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:00:55 -0400, Lindoze 2000 allegedly wrote:
>can someone please repost the solution to why it takes 2minutes to
>telnet to
>RedHat dist.?
>
if it was poset here I would suggest you have a look at one of the
archives of usenet news, http://www.deja.com http://www.remarq.com and
http://www.searchlinux.com come to mind.
--
Herman
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
If a trainstation is place where trains stop, what is workstation?
=====================================================================
Herman Bruijn hbruijn dix.Mines.EDU
------------------------------
From: Scott McEachern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Netscape hangs if not connected to network
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:27:28 GMT
Tom Georges wrote:
> I'm running Netscape 4.6 on linux 2.2.5-22, Pentium box, RedHat 6.0
> distribution.
>
> Whenever I start Netscape and I have not yet dialed into my ISP,
> Netscape hangs (perhaps 10 minutes? Seems like forever!) with
> an inactive X display, then eventually comes to life, whereupon
> I can browse local pages. I have an ethernet connection that is
> frequently active when I do this (via ISDN), so it's presence does
> not seem to help. If I dial in before bringing up Netscape, all
> is well and no delay.
>
> Can anyone help me understand what's going on? And is there anything
> I could set on my machine to stop this from occuring?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
I had the exact same problem with dial up connections.
As soon as you start netscrape it tries to resolve
home.netscape.com, and since you aren't connected to the net it can't be
resolved, causing netscape to get very confused. My guess is that
either your DNS, or an attempt at reaching your ISP's DNS (nonexistent)
is what causes the time delay. Note when you hang up with netscape
open, it comes up with the TCP error every say, 15 seconds? Now try
resolving something with "host" and it takes forever before coming back
host not found.
The solution: Dial up and establish the connection first. Then
start netscape.
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www3.sympatico.ca/scott.mceachern
On the side of the software box, in the "System requirements section",
it said "Requires Windows 95 or better." So I installed Linux.
------------------------------
From: Scott McEachern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DSL IP-address question
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:16:42 GMT
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reid Mumford) writes:
> > I have been trying to configure my DSL connection to work under
> > LINUX. I am using Caldera 2.2. I have configured my Cisco 675
> > modem so that it is using DHCP and NAT and is also configured not
> > to use the DOH (dial on hookup) stuff that is used under windows.
> > My connection works fine under windows95 and i am quite pleased with
> > it. However, i cannot get it to work under LINUX.
> > I am using the windows command "winipcfg" to give me all of my network
> > information. From this command i get my; IP-address, subnet mask,
> > default gateway, and DHCP server information.
> > Are these numbers correct to use in linux?
> > I recently installed Caldera 2.2 and i had no problem installing my
> > network card. It seems like my problem is that i am using the wrong
> > IP-address.
> > Is there a convenient way to find your IP settings under windows so
> > that you can use this information in LINUX?
I hope this will help, as I just set up a similar system in the past
few days. I'm running Suse 6.1, 2.2.10, so I'm not sure about the diffs
with Caldera.
I have two nics in my fw box. One to my xDSL modem, one to my
intranet. I let the os configure one nic with an internal IP addy
(192.168...) The xDSL connection I use assigns IPs via DHCP. Go get
yourself the latest dhcpd package, build and install it.
With Suse you just use YaST to turn on dhclient, you'll have to do the
same for Caldera. Don't use the dhcp server! I then had to tweak the boot
script for dhclient to configure the right device. The way it is now, when
I boot, dhclient automatically gets the ethx device address and the gateway
address (from the provider in my case) and puts it in the routing table.
You'll have to get your DNS servers from your provider, and put those in
/etc/resolv.conf. These will be the same numbers that windoze gives you (I
tried it out under win first as well.) Also, on your box, do NOT have a
default gateway; let dhcp set that up for you.
Then, for the other pc's on your net (I'll assume Linux), set the
default gw to your outgoing box. On mine I first have them check my
internal DNS server, then the ones given by your ISP. Typically your first
outside name resolve will take a minute, but it will eventually get it from
the "backup" nameservers. If you aren't running DNS, just use the ISP's
DNS numbers.
Next, build a new kernel. Include IP masquerading, and
IP_ALWAYS_DEFRAG, all the firewalling stuff, etc, plus whatever you
normally need. Turn on IP forwarding (I'm assuming a 2.2 level kernel!)
with "echo >> 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward"
Then, somewhere in your boot sequence, set up ipchains to masquerade
your internal net's packets with:
ipchains -P forward DENY
ipchains -A forward -s 192.168.2.0/24 -j MASQ
plus whatever other rules you'd like to set up.
Of course, replace 192.168... with your internal addy and subnet (the
/24, for class C's)
Magically, you now have a firewall/masquerade box that will "route"
your internal traffic to the outside world and back. You may have to set
up Netscrape to use a proxy, but you'll have to get the details from your
specific ISP. If they tell you to just uses automatic, get the exact proxy
server and port number anyway, because I had to do it manually, for both
win and Linux. (In netscrape, goto preferences/advanced/proxies and you'll
see what I mean about manual config. It's easy.)
You may have to reboot a couple times, 1) to get the new fw/masq kernel
going, and 2) to test each part of the config, from your internal eth card,
to the dhcp. Check this with your boot msgs and ifconfig. Check your
kernel routing table with route -n to make sure dhcp gets the gateway
correctly.
If you're not using a network, just stick to the dhclient and firewall
stuff.
Sorry I can't be specific about Caldera, I've never used it.
Good luck!
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www3.sympatico.ca/scott.mceachern
On the side of the software box, in the "System requirements section",
it said "Requires Windows 95 or better." So I installed Linux.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Transparent firewall - any such thing?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Cruz)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:13:00 GMT
Yousuf Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only way you can let the Win box keeps its own real IP address is
> to also obtain a real IP address for your Linux box, and at that point,
> you no longer have a client/server arrangement, but a peer-peer
> arrangment, and the Linux box can no longer do any filtering for your
> Win box because they are both going to the Internet independently.
Install 2 ethernet cards in the linux box.
On the cable-modem side, give it any old IP address and additionally have it
proxy arp for the assigned address.
On the inside, give it some address like 10.0.0.1.
Turn on forwarding on the linux box.
Configure the Windows box to use 10.0.0.1 as its gateway, and the assigned
address as its IP address.
Add a static route on the linux box pointing to the assigned address on the
inside interface.
Presto, transparent firewall with one routable address. Works fine for me.
miguel
------------------------------
From: "Gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ethernet Channel bonding
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 99 22:32:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, only Cisco switches channel bond between themselves. You can put
multiple Nic cards in, though, and give them different ip addresses, using
Vlans on the switches.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
