Re: vipw and bash login shell
on 1/16/09 11:16 AM, Daniel Howard danny...@toldme.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Kurt Bigler k...@breathsense.com wrote: When I used vipw to change the login shell to /usr/local/bin/bash (which is listed in /etc/shells, and was built from ports), subsequent ssh login attempts fail (password rejected). If I change the shell back to /bin/sh or /bin/csh then login works again. If I instead use webmin Users and Groups to set the login shell to bash (or any other shell), everything is fine. [snip] What happens if you change the shell via chsh? What happens if you attempt to set a different shell, like /bin/tcsh? Do you get the same result when you log in from within the shell using login or su? What does the user's login line look like in /etc/master.passwd after either vipw or webmin? Are you certain you aren't doing something silly with your editor like a line wrap or DOS newlines? Apologies, I *was* doing something very silly. In vipw, I didn't actually do what I described. Instead I was inserting ba before sh to make bash. But bash doesn't live in /bin, so I had the wrong path as a result. Webmin just gives me a multiple-choice popup, and so I was unable to make the same mistake there. Thanks for your response, which somehow helped me to focus and discover my mistake. -Kurt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
setting up bootable copy of server on my home PC
I'm running a small server based on FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE (GENERIC). I hope to be able to create an bootable copy of the server at home, and so I freed up enough partition space on my PC, using a gparted CD, which is what someone suggested I use. The PC is running Vista. I defragmented and then reduced the Vista partition size, leaving me 120GB for two 58GB unix partitions and a generous 4GB swap area. I'm tentatively ignoring what is perhaps a typical protocol of having separate partitions for /, /usr, and /var for the system at home, lumping all 3 together instead, with my 2nd unix partition being used for web and email hierarchies that are symlinked to from somewhere within /var and /usr. I realize that will complicate the rsync a little since my server has /usr and /var on separate partitions, but I think it can be made to work. Then my plan was to run FreeBSD off a live-CD in order to initialize the disk partitions and run rsync to copy the filesystems from my server, and for that purpose I chose TrueBSD because the current release is based on FreeBSD 7.1. I'm hoping that the server and my home PC are sufficiently compatible for the same kernel (i.e. obtained via rsync) to boot on either box. So set me straight if this seems unrealistic--but it seems like FreeBSD does quite a range of dynamic hardware detection. I got the TrueBSD live CD (maybe it was DVD) booted, and tried running fdisk (whose manual page I can barely understand) and it complains that the partition table is not fdisk-compatible, but it refers to the in-core disklabel, so I'm thinking it may not be reading the correct partition table (from the hard drive). I could go into more detail, but I figure the above will probably give someone sufficient info to shoot my plan down, point me to a better strategy, or with any luck confirm the basic plan and give me a few hints. Someone else did the initial FreeBSD install for me to set up my server, so I'm not savvy of that part of the process, but hope to be able to achieve this goal in a relatively straightforward way, creating a bootable copy of the server via rsync without doing a fresh install. Thanks for any thoughts. -Kurt Bigler ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
vipw and bash login shell
Hi, When I used vipw to change the login shell to /usr/local/bin/bash (which is listed in /etc/shells, and was built from ports), subsequent ssh login attempts fail (password rejected). If I change the shell back to /bin/sh or /bin/csh then login works again. If I instead use webmin Users and Groups to set the login shell to bash (or any other shell), everything is fine. There is a delay of quite a few seconds for the webmin Save operation to complete, whereas after ZZ the vipw completes without any perceptible delay. This is with 7.0-RELEASE (Generic) on i386. Ports were updated sometime last week. Any thoughts much appreciated. -Kurt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
using procmail-3.22_4 pkg on FreeBSD 4.6.1
I have a FreeBSD virtual server with this version: FreeBSD 4.6.1-RELEASE-p10 (VPSHOST) #3: Wed Aug 7 06:17:46 EDT 2002 Yesterday I acquired procmail-3.22_4 via pkg_add from the FreeBSD site. I don't know why I ended up with _4 rather than _5 but I had a lot of difficulty getting the package and I hope this is no issue. I'm not sure if there are requirements about coordinating versions of packages with versions of FreeBSD, I seem to recall that but can't find the info now. In any case, when I run formail (part of procmail) I get this error: ELF interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 not found Just for laughs I created /libexec and in it symbolic link to ld-elf.so.1 which on my system is located in /usr/libexec. Upon doing that I get instead: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object libm.so.3 not found at which point I gave up. Should I expect the pkg to work correctly on my FreeBSD 4.6.1? Please cc your reply to me directly. Thanks in advance. Thanks, Kurt Bigler ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: using procmail-3.22_4 pkg on FreeBSD 4.6.1
on 3/22/05 6:48 PM, Kurt Bigler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a FreeBSD virtual server with this version: FreeBSD 4.6.1-RELEASE-p10 (VPSHOST) #3: Wed Aug 7 06:17:46 EDT 2002 Yesterday I acquired procmail-3.22_4 via pkg_add from the FreeBSD site. I don't know why I ended up with _4 rather than _5 but I had a lot of difficulty getting the package and I hope this is no issue. I'm not sure if there are requirements about coordinating versions of packages with versions of FreeBSD, I seem to recall that but can't find the info now. In any case, when I run formail (part of procmail) I get this error: ELF interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 not found Just for laughs I created /libexec and in it symbolic link to ld-elf.so.1 which on my system is located in /usr/libexec. Upon doing that I get instead: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object libm.so.3 not found at which point I gave up. Should I expect the pkg to work correctly on my FreeBSD 4.6.1? I realize now that I should probably have posted this to the freebsd-ports list. Sorry for the noise, but also feel free to reply if you have any info. I will repost to the ports list. -Kurt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
[quoting cleaned up] on 1/8/03 12:50 AM, Daniel Goepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 1/7/03 11:29 PM, Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:26:53PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: on 1/6/03 10:59 PM, Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:29:15PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: [...] The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This process left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had sendmail running again beside qmail. The correct thing to do is to leave the sendmail binary alone and tweak /etc/mail/mailer.conf so that the sendmail replacement is invoked instead of the base-system's sendmail. Yes, I actually corrected mailer.conf when the problem occurred, but I have heard that some software will try to use /usr/sbin/sendmail explicitly ignoring mailer.conf. /usr/sbin/sendmail is a symbolic link to /usr/sbin/mailwrapper. ie invoking /usr/sbin/sendmail will consult /etc/mail/mailer.conf. This is exactly my point, we are running our selves in legacy circles to comply with the original application. And even worse, we are continuing to conform for how sendmail wants thing, and still calling it sendmail. So, for example, if you install postfix...It replaces the sendmail executable also. So, sendmail (mailwrapper version), points to sendmail (postfix replacement), which finally points to the postfix delivery app. Seems a bit much... Now that I understand this I have to say I agree with the way things are. Using the name sendmail makes one side of the community happy, effortlessly. Providing hooks to allow inserting a substitute for the standard binary makes the other side (or sides) of the community happy, basically effortlessly. Making /usr/sbin/sendmail a symlink I am guessing permits one to customize without using the mailwrapper mechanism, for those who don't like it. I am guessing that using mailwrapper probably results in a performance hit compared to modifying the usr/sbin/sendmail symlink to directly point to the ultimately-desired sendmail binary. My confusion resulted from a faulty memory of what happenned, which I correct here: In my case I had been altering the sendmail symlink, and this conflicted with my VPS provider's standard system upgrade procedure, which replaced my altered symlink. By using the mailwrapper mechanism instead of replacing the symlink I perhaps take a performance hit, but I have accepted this to avoid the problem on future upgrades. I suspect the performance hit is minor compared to everything else that goes on in one of these email transactions, but would appreciate confirmation if anyone else has a better sense of this. Thanks, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
on 1/6/03 10:59 PM, Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:29:15PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: [...] The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This process left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had sendmail running again beside qmail. The correct thing to do is to leave the sendmail binary alone and tweak /etc/mail/mailer.conf so that the sendmail replacement is invoked instead of the base-system's sendmail. Yes, I actually corrected mailer.conf when the problem occurred, but I have heard that some software will try to use /usr/sbin/sendmail explicitly ignoring mailer.conf. That's why so far I also maintain the alias in place of the standard binary. Is this true, or bogus? Thanks, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
on 1/6/03 4:48 PM, Daniel Goepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lowell Gilbert wrote: Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting it accepted into the system. Well yes, I would love to. However, I'm not sure I have the know how yet. I have plenty of experience in programming, but more db and interface stuff, I also don't have any specific experience with FreeBSD development. Plus, why invent the wheel. CVSup is already written, and the FreeBSD core team has control of the source tree, and what gets installed. If someone can save me some time in searching, where is the source that controls what is installed by FreeBSD? Also, anyone on a first name basis with John Polstra? I have submitted an email to the comments address on their web page, but I would be willing to bet it will get swept under the rug. And I'm not sure learning Modula-3 is on my agenda right now either. I do hear what you are saying though. Trust me, I love this environment where so many people run into a blocking point, writes some to fix the problem, and then submit it to share with everyone else, and I would love to contribute in any way I can, with whoever might actually have more knowledge on this matter than I do. But also, these are projects currently in someone else's court right now, and I don't know the players. I realize, as I mentioned in another post, I may well be the only person that really wants this functionality. I welcome comments though about what other people think on the matter, in general or specific terms. I have had a related problem, though some of the details are out of my control, and I am unaware of the exact mechanisms involved. I used a VPS service provider - that is I have a virtual server. As I understand it, this service is based on standard FreeBSD VPS capabilities. Sendmail was the first thing I got rid of after trying it for a few days. I replaced it with qmail+vpopmail. The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This process left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had sendmail running again beside qmail. The only consequence of this that I know of is that local root email (cron stuff) suddenly got forwarded according to the long-forgotten sendmail configuration. The install process my provider uses for system upgrades is out of my control, as is the kernel configuration. However, I am putting in my vote for making sendmail as optional as possible. If it were an optional part of the FreeBSD distribution it is more likely my provider would make this option (just say no to sendmail) available to me. Regards, Kurt Bigler Or any information about what future plans there are on modifications to the install process. And if this is not the forum for this, I would appreciate being told where the best place to bring this up would be. I checked the archives on freebsd-config, and it would appear to be a largely dead list. Thanks. Peace. -Daniel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lowell Gilbert Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:42 AM To: Daniel Goepp Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail Daniel Goepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So mx1.freebsd.org itself runs Postfix, but yet, sendmail is still so embedded in FreeBSD that it's almost imposible to get cleaned out. When are they going to make the FreeBSD install configurable enough to not have to include sendmail, bind, openssl, etc? I choose to either install these apps as ports, or not at all. Is there a way to break down the install, and just get a bare bare bare bones install of just base, crypto and man pages, like the install says it's going to do? I can't imagine this would be too hard to do! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Export variables
on 1/6/03 4:32 PM, Gerard Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does one export variables in root's shell. Im trying to set some variables trying to get mailman from the ports to install. Thanks If I get right what you're asking... Root's shell is csh by default. Csh does not have an exact equivalent to the sh export command. Instead you must use setenv variable value Note the lack of the = sign. This basically combines the functions of sh's set and export. (Maybe there are some subtle differences if you subsequently set the non-exported variable by the same name? But you probably don't need to worry about this.) -Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: email addresses used for lists [was: L0phtcrack]
on 12/24/02 3:53 AM, Rob O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 15:46 23/12/2002 -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: on 12/23/02 3:34 PM, Kenzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for using hotmail accountComputer 101, never use your real or company e-mail address to post on forums, just attracks crackers. I currently create a new email address for every category of mailing list that I join. For web use, I use a throw-away free-ISP account (which lets me pop mail from anywhere!) which hands out email addresses in the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] - whenever a web sites asks me for an email address, I use their domain name in front of the @ - nothing to set up my end, and I know immediately whenever I get spam through that isp which web site gave it out. (Thank you, Paltalk..) Well that's an interesting idea. Throw-away subdomains (excuse my terminology - maybe I'm supposed to call them host names?) imply a whole host of email addresses without wasting a domain name. I have never implemented email at a subdomain. Can most virtual domain mail servers handle [EMAIL PROTECTED] just as easily as [EMAIL PROTECTED]? If so, I might start providing myself (and others too) such options. Will qmail+vpopmail do this transparently? Is it just a matter of the domain name containing another . as far as qmail+vpopmail is concerned? Or should I avoid giving further exposure to the domain name by creating subdomains under it? In that case I can register one more domain name just for this purpose. Presumably it is not a problem that it is hosted on the same server.? Only problem I see is I use webmail.domain.com for webmail access at domain. I guess I will have to find out whether zoneedit.com will let me set up DNS such that webmail.foo.domain.com can work. (Getting really OT now - I'll ask zoneedit about this.) Thanks, Kurt Bigler I sort of forgot for this mailing list Rob I know others use special accounts for mailing lists which refuse to receive any mail that doesn't come from one of the lists that they associate with the account (or else they accomplish the filtering in their email client). A word of warning: When I first joined freebsd-questions, I joined with my main preferred only-for-friends spam-safe email address by mistake. Being lazy, I waited a few hours to correct that, unjoining, and rejoining with the desired address. But ever since then I get matching paired spams on the two addresses: the one I used by mistake for a few hours, and the one that I use at the moment ONLY for freebsd-questions. Fortunately I get only 1 or 2 spams a day like this, but I'm afraid it will grow and I will have to give up my main email address, or get deeply into spam filtering, which so far I have avoided. Regards, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Argument list too long: limitation in grep? bash? FreeBSD?
on 12/24/02 2:52 PM, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: paul beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Moran wrote: d/l the entire php documentation as individual html files. This equates to a LOT of files in a single directory (how can I get a count of this?) Anyway, I'm trying to find the docs on some features that the www.php.net's search isn't really helping on (searching for __FILE__ doesn't search for __FILE__ ... it searches for file, and there's too many results) so I try: grep __FILE__ *.html and I get the error: -bash: /usr/bin/grep: Argument list too long Is this a shortcoming of bash, grep or FreeBSD? I'm assuming it's not grep, as the command: find . -name *.html -print | xargs grep __FILE__ yeilds: -bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long try grep __FILE__ *.html. Makes no difference, I get the same error. to get a file coun, 'ls | wc' might work. That helped! I've got 3000 files in that directory. The success of the second item maybe gives a clue how to approach the first. Maybe try something like this: ls | grep .html temp edit temp to insert grep at the beginning of each line e.g. in vi use :%s/^/grep __FILE__ / Now temp contains bunch of lines like: grep __FILE__ file1.html grep __FILE__ file2.html grep __FILE__ file3.html Then chmod +x temp and execute it or use temp as input to your desired shell. HTH, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: email addresses used for lists [was: L0phtcrack]
on 12/23/02 3:34 PM, Kenzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for using hotmail accountComputer 101, never use your real or company e-mail address to post on forums, just attracks crackers. I guess it just depends on the person, I just prefer to use different e-mail accounts for work and personal stuff. I guest if you guys think that it's wrong to do so, please let me know why, cause I really can't think of any reasons. Again, sorry guys I didn't mean to offend you. I currently create a new email address for every category of mailing list that I join. I know others use special accounts for mailing lists which refuse to receive any mail that doesn't come from one of the lists that they associate with the account (or else they accomplish the filtering in their email client). A word of warning: When I first joined freebsd-questions, I joined with my main preferred only-for-friends spam-safe email address by mistake. Being lazy, I waited a few hours to correct that, unjoining, and rejoining with the desired address. But ever since then I get matching paired spams on the two addresses: the one I used by mistake for a few hours, and the one that I use at the moment ONLY for freebsd-questions. Fortunately I get only 1 or 2 spams a day like this, but I'm afraid it will grow and I will have to give up my main email address, or get deeply into spam filtering, which so far I have avoided. Regards, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Padding expr output
on 12/22/02 3:57 PM, BSD Freak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I am usiung expr in a shell script and need to pad it's output to always be 3 characters. An example will explain thing better: % expr 007 + 1 Output is 8 I need the output to be 008 I checked the expr man page, but nothing there solves my problem. Anyone out there got one? Don't use expr to do the formatting. Use some sprintf-like capability in some scripting language that supports full functionality from the command-line. I think both awk and perl have that capability in some form. (Maybe someone else can be more specific.) Kurt Bigler Thanks in advance To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: chown broken??
on 12/20/02 7:39 AM, Fernando Gleiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Roman Neuhauser wrote: apart from what others said about wildcard substitution: roman@freepuppy /usr 1005:1 ls -l .* zsh: no matches found: .* roman@freepuppy /usr 1006:1 IOW, the behavior is actually shell- (and shell configuration-) dependent. Yes, because wildcard expansion is done by the shell. zsh (at least with my settings) would protect you from yourself in this situation. And will prevent you from doing it when you really need it :) I don't know zsh, but if it has a setting that prevents wildcard expansion from including .. as a match for .* that strikes me as an all-around good thing. When do you _really_need_ .* to match .. ? You could in such a situation type .. explicitly, just as you would often add .* when * does not work. One possible approach with some nice consistency would be: * matches:foo but not .foo .* matches:.foobut not ..foo (and not ..) Of course to remain fully consistent with this approach (by one interpretation), foo* would not match foo.foo - rather you would have to type foo.* or foo*.* according to your needs. This might fail to meet expectatons in more situations than the ones it fixes. That aside, even an interpretation of .* that allows ..fo but simply disallows only .. still strikes me as an all-around good thing. Anyone hurt by this (at least on the command line) can simply add .. explicitly to the list. Maybe it would be an improvement to unix if this change were made to all shells, or even just to go into prompt for y mode when hitting .. in this one case (if the shell is interactive). Kurt Bigler Fer -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message.see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
remote backup suggestions?
Can anyone suggest a reliable strategy for remote backup of a freebsd VPS (a single virtual server under VPS)? I would like to backup a remote server onto my Macintosh (could be MacOS X) client's hard disk. It would be nice to have incremental capability to reduce backup time. A synchronize approach might be even nicer. Note that the users/groups oHEIG local would not match the server. Thanks, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Mail server howto question
on 12/4/02 7:48 PM, Lord Raiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, this is kind of a two part question. So here goes. 1st, I need to build a mail server that does both pop and smtp. 2nd, I need that server to be able to do pop before smtp authentication for relaying. Anyone got a good tutorial on how to do that and how to setup the server to authenticate smtp users via pop before smtp? What mail server software would I need to pull this off? Thanks for the info! qmail+vpopmail does this. It is working fine for me. You can set the life span of the smtp authorization (how long after a pop smtp accesses are allowed). When it expires it requires another pop before smtp is allowed. Only problem is I find that one send attempt will fail even if I program the email client to check before sending. I suppose if there is not enough time between the pop and the smtp this will happen. Retrying receive+send at the client once gets rid of the problem until it expires again. If you check email regularly all day it may only expire once a day. So people using the feature will have to get used to getting the one error and retrying after each time it is allowed to expire, unless they can program (or manually arrange) a sufficient delay between popping and sending in their client. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
strange ftpd login problem
I am using a VPS service provider who is running: FreeBSD 4.6.1-RELEASE-p10 FTP server (Version 6.00LS) A user is having problems with FTP login using GoLive 6.0 on MacOS X. The user has no problems with other FTP servers. I tried a series of passwords and he tried each with the result being that only passwords that begin with his user name permit a successful login. I installed GoLive 6.0 myself under MacOS X and for me all passwords work on his account. So unless you have a hunch about this, I would like to be able to view the FTP sessions from the server side. Is there a way to arrange this using ftpd? I can use a different port if necessary. Alternatively I could manually emulate an FTP server if I could create some talk-style interface that his FTP client could connect to, but I have no idea how to do that. Is there a way to connect a terminal up to an incoming FTP port? Thanks for any help. -Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: strange ftpd login problem
on 12/3/02 8:01 PM, Duncan Anker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 13:55, Kurt Bigler wrote: I am using a VPS service provider who is running: FreeBSD 4.6.1-RELEASE-p10 FTP server (Version 6.00LS) A user is having problems with FTP login using GoLive 6.0 on MacOS X. The user has no problems with other FTP servers. I tried a series of passwords and he tried each with the result being that only passwords that begin with his user name permit a successful login. I installed GoLive 6.0 myself under MacOS X and for me all passwords work on his account. That sounds really bizarre - is this Go Live under Mac OS X on a *different* machine that it works though? Yes, different machine at a different site under a different connection provider. So unless you have a hunch about this, I would like to be able to view the FTP sessions from the server side. Is there a way to arrange this using ftpd? I can use a different port if necessary. Alternatively I could manually emulate an FTP server if I could create some talk-style interface that his FTP client could connect to, but I have no idea how to do that. Is there a way to connect a terminal up to an incoming FTP port? Thanks for any help. I haven't used it, but I recently read about a utility called sockspy, which is meant to sit between servers and clients for the purpose of debugging network issues like this. Try http://sockspy.sourceforge.net/sockspy.html (URL obtained from SysAdmin magazine, December 2002) I'll take a look. Thanks! Hope that helps To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
