Re: [SLUG] Answer Found - RE:Ubuntu drive designations (Re: update to Hardy)

[bill]

Hi Masood

Thanks for the reply.

I am using UUIDs in /boot/grub/menu.lst and /etc/fstab.

I've just spent afew hours installing Kubuntu 8.04 on my 2nd PC with an 
identical mobo and 1 x IDE and 1 x SATA hd.


First istall placed everything on the IDE Primary Master 1st partition.

Second install placed "/" on Prim Master 1st partition and "/home" on 
IDE Prim Master 2nd partition.


With or without SATA HD attached ( it was attached during install) I get 
error 15 message on boot.


If the SATA HD is attached I get the Grub menu, then the message. 
Without the SATA, no Grub menu but error 15 message.


I have now installed Mandriva Powwrpack 2008 which runs fine, no 
problems and still uses /hdXX and /sdxx.


After much googling, I'm convinced that there are problems with some 
mobos when both IDE and SATA hds are attached.


Bill



Hi Bill

Try replacing root=/dev/sdb1 with root=UUID=YOUR_ROOT_UUID
It is the default in Ubuntu and I think it should solve the problem.

Masood

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM, bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  

root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-16-genric root=/dev/sdb1 ro quiet splash.

Notice the /dev/sdb1 which indicates that the IDE hd is the SECOND hd.





  


--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Daniel Pittman]

Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:53:09PM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > John Ferlito wrote:
>> >
>> >> In my opinion SPF pretty much protects you from one thing, joe-job
>> >> attacks. ie bounces where someone else has used your domain as the
>> >> from address.
>> >
>> > Bingo. That alone is worth the (very cheap) price of admission.
>> 
>> While I agree with the other parts of this, the price of admission is
>> low *only* for leaf sites, and then only for sites that have a tightly
>> controlled user base.
>> 
>> Replacing my email infrastructure, which only services a dozen people,
>> would cost me somewhere on the order of twelve hours which I cost at
>> around $1,716 -- before overheads like an outage for the process -- in
>> order to obtain support for SRS.[1]
>
> why would you need to do that, place a Linux box as a gateway
> inbetween your current infrastructure and the internet

Ah, so, to cost your proposal:

New hardware, $750.   (Nothing spare, sorry.)
OS Installation and configuration, say 4 hours, for $572.
Ongoing maintenance and running costs, say $500 per annum.

That doesn't sound all that much better than the first option, to me,
though it does scale more slowly to the number of users. :)

>> For someone larger, like many of my clients, this would actually
>> increase significantly from there.[2]  Migrating a Lotus Notes or
>> Exchange environment to use SRS is hard(tm).
>
> I know of a telco (1 of the top 2), that did the above, they were
> invested in exchange (and a range of virus scanning gateways before the
> corporate server) all protected by a couple of linux boxes

Sure.  I make no claim that it is impossible, simply that it is hard and
costly.  You don't happen to know what their internal cost for that
project was, do you?

(I would bet at least a couple of full time people for a couple of
 weeks, plus planning and management overheads.)

Again, as I wrote:

>> Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be worth the cost, just that it
>> isn't nearly as small as you seem to suggest.  

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Alex Samad]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:53:09PM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > John Ferlito wrote:
> >
> >> In my opinion SPF pretty much protects you from one thing, joe-job
> >> attacks. ie bounces where someone else has used your domain as the
> >> from address.
> >
> > Bingo. That alone is worth the (very cheap) price of admission.
> 
> While I agree with the other parts of this, the price of admission is
> low *only* for leaf sites, and then only for sites that have a tightly
> controlled user base.
> 
> Replacing my email infrastructure, which only services a dozen people,
> would cost me somewhere on the order of twelve hours which I cost at
> around $1,716 -- before overheads like an outage for the process -- in
> order to obtain support for SRS.[1]

why would you need to do that, place a Linux box as a gateway inbetween
your current infrastructure and the internet

> 
> 
> For someone larger, like many of my clients, this would actually
> increase significantly from there.[2]  Migrating a Lotus Notes or
> Exchange environment to use SRS is hard(tm).
I know of a telco (1 of the top 2), that did the above, they were
invested in exchange (and a range of virus scanning gateways before the
corporate server) all protected by a couple of linux boxes

> 
> Regards,
> Daniel
> 
> Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be worth the cost, just that it
> isn't nearly as small as you seem to suggest.  
> 
> 
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  ...without SRS I would need to modify the server to forbid .forward
>  style mail forwarding, which would otherwise cause me to send mail
>  outside compliance with SPF.  This would be ... difficult, actually.
> 
> [2]  In fairness, for others it would be a relatively trivial
>  modification to deploy SRS.  It all depends on their platform, and
>  how much budget they have for inserting other servers in the
>  outbound path...
> 
> -- 
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
> 

-- 
"I think it's important to bring somebody from outside the system, the judicial 
system, somebody that hasn't been on the bench and, therefore, there's not a 
lot of opinions for people to look at."

- George W. Bush
10/04/2005
Washington, DC
On the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Glen Turner]

Has anyone else implemented these? Are they worthwhile? Problems?


SPF is very little trouble, gives very little protection, but enough
to be worth the hassle.

DomainKeys offers more protection. dk-milter is easy to set up,
the DNS is easy to set up.

I've also found that rejecting all SMTP mail addressed from my domain
works well in reducing spam (mail from my domain should use SMTP-Submission).

--
 Glen Turner
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Daniel Pittman]

Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Ferlito wrote:
>
>> In my opinion SPF pretty much protects you from one thing, joe-job
>> attacks. ie bounces where someone else has used your domain as the
>> from address.
>
> Bingo. That alone is worth the (very cheap) price of admission.

While I agree with the other parts of this, the price of admission is
low *only* for leaf sites, and then only for sites that have a tightly
controlled user base.

Replacing my email infrastructure, which only services a dozen people,
would cost me somewhere on the order of twelve hours which I cost at
around $1,716 -- before overheads like an outage for the process -- in
order to obtain support for SRS.[1]


For someone larger, like many of my clients, this would actually
increase significantly from there.[2]  Migrating a Lotus Notes or
Exchange environment to use SRS is hard(tm).

Regards,
Daniel

Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be worth the cost, just that it
isn't nearly as small as you seem to suggest.  


Footnotes: 
[1]  ...without SRS I would need to modify the server to forbid .forward
 style mail forwarding, which would otherwise cause me to send mail
 outside compliance with SPF.  This would be ... difficult, actually.

[2]  In fairness, for others it would be a relatively trivial
 modification to deploy SRS.  It all depends on their platform, and
 how much budget they have for inserting other servers in the
 outbound path...

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Daniel Pittman]

John Ferlito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:05AM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> I think you think SPF is protecting something other than what it is.
>> 
>> SPF is designed to make sure that you have somewhere *real* to
>> associate the MAIL FROM part of the SMTP transaction with, and to
>> verify that this is correct with regard the declared domain outbound
>> SMTP server information.
>
> In my opinion SPF pretty much protects you from one thing, joe-job
> attacks. ie bounces where someone else has used your domain as the
> from address.

In the opinion of the designers it protects what I mentioned: the
authenticity of the SMTP MAIL FROM field, which has the effect you
describe as a side-effect.[1]

> Anyone that has had this happen to them knows that it can turn into
> thousands of emails in your mailbox in a very short period of time.

Oh, yes.  Very unpleasant things to be on short end of.

> Unfortunately like most of the proposed SPAM solutions of this nature
> they are only really useful if everyone is doing it.

SPF is *NOT* an anti-SPAM solution, and is not marketed by the original
designers as being an anti-SPAM solution.  This doesn't stop advocates
from claiming that it is, of course.

It might be a valuable part of a real anti-SPAM solution, yes, because
it provides an assurance that the SMTP FROM address is legitimate, so
enables reputation based filtering, but it does *zero* about SPAM
intrinsically.

> Which reminds me I should go set it up :)

Don't forget to turn it on to reject email that violates published SPF
rules, not just to publish your own records. :)

Regards,
Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  ...a potentially desirable side-effect, but not the sole purpose of
 the protocol.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

John Ferlito wrote:

> In my opinion SPF pretty much protects you from one thing, joe-job
> attacks. ie bounces where someone else has used your domain as the
> from address.

Bingo. That alone is worth the (very cheap) price of admission.

Erik
-- 
-
Erik de Castro Lopo
-
"Software is largely a service industry operating under the persistent
but unfounded delusion that it is a manufacturing industry."
-- Eric S. Raymond
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[John Ferlito]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:05AM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> I think you think SPF is protecting something other than what it is.
> 
> SPF is designed to make sure that you have somewhere *real* to associate
> the MAIL FROM part of the SMTP transaction with, and to verify that this
> is correct with regard the declared domain outbound SMTP server
> information.

In my opinion SPF pretty much protects you from one thing, joe-job
attacks. ie bounces where someone else has used your domain as the
from address.

Anyone that has had this happen to them knows that it can turn into
thousands of emails in your mailbox in a very short period of time.

Unfortunately like most of the proposed SPAM solutions of this nature
they are only really useful if everyone is doing it.

Which reminds me I should go set it up :)

-- 
John
http://www.inodes.org/
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Daniel Pittman]

Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > During testing I realised that SPF or at least this implementation I
>> > am using has a serious flaw that will result in mail that should be
>> > blocked by SPF actually getting through.
>> 
>> If you don't mind, what implementation flaw?
>
> When postfix asks the SPF policy module to validate an email, it
> does so using the info from the HELO/EHLO and MAIL FROM parts of the
> SMTP transaction and does not look at the From file of the actual
> email headers.

That is actually correct: SPF is about forgery of the SMTP MAIL FROM,
*not* about forgery in the textual headers.

...and reading the protocol description to verify I see that the
designers of SPF have *also* diverged from the SMTP RFC in their
handling of the HELO/EHLO header.

The standard only calls for a "globally unique identifier" there, not a
domain name, for all that common practice is to use the later.  Oh, well.

> Since its perfectly legal for the connecting MTA to say "HELO  address>" and "MAIL FROM: <>" either of these two walks right past the
> Postfix SPF implementation.

I think you think SPF is protecting something other than what it is.

SPF is designed to make sure that you have somewhere *real* to associate
the MAIL FROM part of the SMTP transaction with, and to verify that this
is correct with regard the declared domain outbound SMTP server
information.


If you want to verify that the textual From information in the email
body is "correct" then you need some other solution.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Daniel Pittman wrote:

> Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > During testing I realised that SPF or at least this implementation I
> > am using has a serious flaw that will result in mail that should be
> > blocked by SPF actually getting through.
> 
> If you don't mind, what implementation flaw?

When postfix asks the SPF policy module to validate an email, it
does so using the info from the HELO/EHLO and MAIL FROM parts of the
SMTP transaction and does not look at the From file of the actual
email headers.

Since its perfectly legal for the connecting MTA to say "HELO "
and "MAIL FROM: <>" either of these two walks right past the Postfix
SPF implementation.



Thanks for the rest. I still need time to digest it.

Erik
-- 
-
Erik de Castro Lopo
-
Heisenbugs - The bugs that go away when you turn on debugging.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Advice on data transfer over shortwave

[jam]

On Sunday 15 June 2008 22:05:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ust to let you all know, I am grateful for the advice from Grahame, Del and
> Terry. I have aimed a bit lower in our ambitions and will look at first
> making sure we have reliable power to keep his notebook running and aim at
> giving him email capability.
>  With the programming, we will have to organise his part a bit more
> carefully (he will be going to the "shops" every 6 to 8 weeks, he can
> synchronise then ).
>
> This has ended up a bit off topic so my apologies.

I forget the first bit, but unless he is going bush, they do have G3 and a G3 
modem is easy n cheap for modest data amounts
Mail me off list and I'll put you in contact with some folk who can tell you 
exactly, if you want.

James
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Intel Xeon 7350 and x86_64

[tony]

yeh thanks, I also had the pressed versions of the 4.0 CDs and only
the 386 would work.


On 6/15/08, Ben Donohue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I know you may have tried this...)
> Did you download an ISO and make a CD?
> Try again or do a checksum on the download.
> I had a similar problem in the past and it was a faulty CD.
> Ben
>
>
>
>
> Tony Sceats wrote:
>> Has anyone here encountered a problem with the Intel Quad Core Xeon X7350
>> chips not booting from x86_64 media?
>>
>> I'm trying to install RHEL4.5 on a brand new PowerEdge R900 and the x86_64
>> media wont boot, however the i386 media will.. I'm sure these are 64bit
>> and
>> the propaganda indicates that at least Suse 64Bit Enterprise 10 should
>> work
>> because Intel published benchmarks using it
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> --
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
>
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Opinions on Sender Policy Framework and Domain Keys

[Daniel Pittman]

Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I am in the process of setting up mail for a new domain and I'm
> interested in people's opinions on these two:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_policy_framework
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys

This is sadly likely to be contentious, because opinions on the first
vary wildly.  I am firmly in the anti-SPF camp, and think DomainKeys
reasonable but not -- right now -- wildly effective.

> I have already added an SPF text DNS record for the domain as well as
> installed and set up the postfix-policyd-spf-python package (I'm using
> Postfix for the MTA).
>
> During testing I realised that SPF or at least this implementation I
> am using has a serious flaw that will result in mail that should be
> blocked by SPF actually getting through.

If you don't mind, what implementation flaw?  While I mislike the tool
it always helps when someone calls up because their mail is broken...


So, SPF: I don't like it.  Their original design completely ignored a
whole bunch of the standard SMTP architecture and practice, in that the
processing of .forward style email redirection was ignored.

The SRS, or Sender Rewriting Scheme, only requires that all SMTP servers
on the Internet are redeployed to implement a new protocol similar to,
but not exactly like, SMTP.


They also authenticate the wrong thing: the path your email went
through, which SMTP is *explicitly* designed to treat as
insignificant,[1] is treated as the most important attribute in
authenticating the origin of the message.

This means that any change in message routing, or any scenario where the
SMTP outbound path changes, requires updating your description of
"permitted" systems.  

That imposes, at minimum, a maintenance overhead on anyone working on
your network, and also significantly increases the risk that you can't
verify authenticity correctly after the current moment.[2]


Anyway, to address the second item on your list:

> I then looked at Domain Keys the wikipedia entry has a large section
> titled "Weaknesses".

This section is a good thing; their analysis is reasonable and accurate
to the best of my knowledge.  They seem to have a good summary of the
risks and costs of the system.

Was there something specific that concerned you in the discussion, or
just that there were admitted weaknesses to the protocol?


As far as it goes I don't think DomainKeys is a bad design: it is
compatible with SMTP as it stands, it can be incrementally deployed
without any problems.

It also authenticates the right thing: that the *sending server* is
authorized, not that the path the email followed is authorized.  


> Has anyone else implemented these? Are they worthwhile? Problems?

I have a reasonable amount of unpleasant experience with SPF, and
generally find it worthwhile.  In my experience most deployments of SPF
are broken one way or another.

Often they are deployed incorrectly by people who don't fully understand
their deployment, or end up screwed because they need to include a bunch
of SMTP servers operated by third parties who, for whatever reason, are
not cooperative.

Oh, and many businesses come to trouble because they roll out SPF,
advertise their forwarders, then have (senior) staff go off and get a 3G
modem, broadband, or whatever, and send email that gets blocked because
it comes from an illegitimate server.


Problems here would be more widespread, in my experience, if more places
implemented *both* parts of SPF -- it seems to be very popular to
publish SPF records for your mail, but to ignore them completely on
inbound email.


However, keep in mind that most of my dealing will have been with broken
SPF records, or when senior staff have their email blocked because they
bought a 3G modem.  I am probably seeing more of the bad and less of the
good side[3] of SPF.

Regards,
Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  The SMTP MX system replaced the "bang path" style solution that was
 an explicit hop-by-hop email routing protocol, for reliability and
 flexibility, quite some time back now.

[2]  Domain Keys suffers this, also, in that a changed key will
 potentially cause material signed with an older key to become
 invalid.  This is a much less common change than adding or removing
 an outbound MX, in my experience and opinion.

[3]  I presume that SPF must actually achieve something, for someone,
 other than making them feel good about fighting spam.  I just have
 not actually seen any evidence yet.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Advice on data transfer over shortwave

[Ken Wilson]

A satellite phone would get low power requirement access in a durable 
box, as long as it was modem compatible. Inmarsat email works well from 
ships, but call duration is pricey.

Ken

Mehmet Yousouf wrote:
Hi all, 
just to let you all know, I am grateful for the advice from Grahame, Del and

Terry. I have aimed a bit lower in our ambitions and will look at first
making sure we have reliable power to keep his notebook running and aim at
giving him email capability.
 With the programming, we will have to organise his part a bit more
carefully (he will be going to the "shops" every 6 to 8 weeks, he can
synchronise then ).

This has ended up a bit off topic so my apologies.

Thanks again
Regards,

 Mehmet


- Original Message -
Subject: [SLUG] Advice on data transfer over shortwave
From: Mehmet Yousouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SLUG" 
Date: 15-06-2008 11:54


Hi,
I have a friend that will be going to the Solomon Islands for a year (work
on a thesis). He will have some solar panels to give him some power but

not

much else.
What I am hopeful is possible is to set him up so that he can use rf to
connect and merge / update a git repository (he is also a programmer - and

a
linux user) and possibly send emails. 
Has anyone got any experience in this area? 
Is it workable? 
Advice on equipment / gotchas /power requirements / set up would be

greatly
appreciated. 
He will be heading off in July and I would like to test something before

he

goes.

Regards, 
Mehmet




--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html




--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] Re: [SLUG-ANNOUNCE] SLUG Monthly Meeting, Friday 27 June and Call for Speakers

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 11:44 +1000, Sonia Hamilton wrote:
> === Call for Speakers ===
> 
> SLUG is currently looking for speakers to fill our General and In-Depth 
> Talk slots for this month's talks. Please contact the committee if you 
> would like to talk - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I'd be happy to do a talk about bzr-search - I blogged this about it
recently:
http://www.advogato.org/person/robertc/diary/87.html

I found writing this to be fun and enjoyable, perhaps I could share some
of that ;)
-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] SLUG Monthly Meeting, Friday 27 June and Call for Speakers

[Sonia Hamilton]

=== Call for Speakers ===

SLUG is currently looking for speakers to fill our General and In-Depth 
Talk slots for this month's talks. Please contact the committee if you 
would like to talk - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


== June SLUG Monthly Meeting ==

You can read the full version of this announcement on the Web at
http://www.slug.org.au/node/102

When:
   18.30 - 20.30, Friday, 27 June, 2008

We start at 18:30 but we ask that people arrive 15 minutes early so we 
can all get into the building and start on time. Please do not arrive 
before 18:00, as it may hinder business activities for our host!


Appropriate signage and directions will be posted on the building.

Where:
   Atlassian[0], 173-185 Sussex Street, Sydney
   (corner of Sussex and Market Street)

Entry is via the rear on Slip Street. There are stairs going down along 
the outside of building from Sussex St to near the entrance. A map of 
the area and directions can be found here[1].


= Talks =

General Talk: TBA
In-Depth Talk: TBA
SLUG-Lets: Sonia Hamilton - hard disks, partitioning and mounts

We will release another announcement after we confirm our speakers.

= Meeting Schedule =

See here[2] for an explanation of the segments.

* 18:15 : Open Doors
* 18:30 : Announcements, News, Introductions
* 18:45 : General Talk (see above)
* 19:30 : Intermission
* 19:45 : Split into two groups for
* In-depth Talk (see above)
* SLUGlets: Linux Q&A and other miscellany
* 20:30 : Dinner

Dinner is at Golden Harbour Restaurant, in Chinatown. We will be having 
the $24 Banquet[3], but we will be collecting $25 per head for ease of 
accounting and to cover a tip. We will be taking numbers during the 
break to confirm the reservation size. If you have any particular 
dietary requirements (e.g. vegetarian), or if you would prefer to order 
separately, let us know beforehand. Dinner is a great way to socialise 
and learn in a relaxed atmosphere :)


We hope to see you there!

[0] http://www.atlassian.com
[1] http://tinyurl.com/35fxes
[2] http://www.slug.org.au/meetings/meetingformat
[3] http://www.goldenharbour.com.au/specials.html

--
Sonia Hamilton
Committe Member
Sydney Linux Users Group
http://www.slug.org.au

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html