Re: [eug-lug]Semi-interesting SPAM articles
On Friday 12 March 2004 21:27, T. Joseph Carter wrote: You realize that the reason I stopped signing mail was that NO VERSION of MS Outlook can handle any standard method of PGP signature correctly, right? No, I wasn't aware of that. I'm also a little puzzled by your news, since it worked perfectly the last time I used Outlook. I also know that PGP is working quite well in communucations between my elderly mother and me (we discuss many things that John Ashcroft doesn't need to know about). She's using some version of OE but I don't remember which one. But I haven't been a 'doze user for a couple of years now, and haven't kept up with what M$ is doing. Still, I'm a little puzzled by your news because it used to work well. Ken ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]Semi-interesting SPAM articles
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 08:44:47AM -0800, Ken Barber wrote: You realize that the reason I stopped signing mail was that NO VERSION of MS Outlook can handle any standard method of PGP signature correctly, right? No, I wasn't aware of that. I'm also a little puzzled by your news, since it worked perfectly the last time I used Outlook. I also know that PGP is working quite well in communucations between my elderly mother and me (we discuss many things that John Ashcroft doesn't need to know about). She's using some version of OE but I don't remember which one. If you don't have PGP installed, OE sees all messages as attachments which cannot be quoted for reply. The signature, being application/something is of the type that people fear may contain a virus. Most messages of mine were simply deleted. Those who did not simply delete always felt it necessary to explain to me why my email was broken. Not one of the idiots considered that it was their email client. But I haven't been a 'doze user for a couple of years now, and haven't kept up with what M$ is doing. Still, I'm a little puzzled by your news because it used to work well. And MS hasn't kept up with what the rest of the world was doing or bothered to implement RFC standards... ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]second NIC for dedicated connection
All is fine. I didn't have the interfaces line in my smb.conf. That, and samba was being stupid until I did /usr/bin/smbd. The interface works fine for NFS and SMB now with only one little bit of trouble. Haven't searched thoroughly to see if it's a client or server thing but I've seen posts on it. NFS likes to just drop it's connection even though it shows as still mounted. Seems to be a 2.6 thing. Anyone else experienced it yet? That be all, Mr O. --- Cory Petkovsek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If using samba v3, make sure these conf statements make sense: hosts allow = 192.168.1. 192.168.2. 127. interfaces = 192.168.12.2/24 192.168.13.2/24 route -an? Seems to not like that switch. ifconfig is proper because Because nothin.. It's not for you, its for us. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
