Linux-Networking Digest #971, Volume #9 Fri, 22 Jan 99 21:13:40 EST
Contents:
login delay on all ports ("Thomas Hartwig")
Re: Bad Sendmails with otherwise good OSes, Re: Open relays on DNS (Paul Schmehl)
Re: pppd gurus - help, please! (David T. Blake)
Re: more samba problems (David Kirkpatrick)
weird ftp problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux vs WIN NT (Johnny Icon)
Re: Bad Sendmails with otherwise good OSes, Re: Open relays on DNS (Peter Seebach)
Re: I need a good proxy server (Darren Greer)
Re: Bad Sendmails with otherwise good OSes, Re: Open relays on DNS ("Clifton T.
Sharp Jr.")
Re: pppd gurus - help, please! (Herbie van Tetering)
Re: How to find Docs on setting up POP3 on Redhat 5.2 ("Charles Stack")
Re: Linux-Linux networking problem (Jesse Hughes)
Re: How to find Docs on setting up POP3 on Redhat 5.2 (Richard Hyde)
dhcp does not work with linux 2.2.0-final??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Doug DeJulio)
Re: ping self ("hieninger")
Re: [Q]Sendmail 8.91 and relaying (Andrzej Filip)
Re: Redhat Linux 5.2 Sendmail slow to authenticate sender address ("Valery
Zamarayev")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Thomas Hartwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: login delay on all ports
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:30:57 +0100
system: RedHat 5.1
I run a network server for serveral purposes.
When I try to connect on serveral ports, eg. 80 and 110 the server delays
for about 3 seconds up to 10 seconds:
$ telnet xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Trying xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Connected xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Escape character is '^]'.
~~~
Then the port is open and there is no problem with connectivity. The host is
running with serveral
virtual IPs, the machine from I connect is known to DNS and "/etc/hosts".
I think this is a matter of "tcpd", but I don't how to trace/debug his
doings and where it lacks?
Thanks for every hint
Thomas
------------------------------
From: TINLC#[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schmehl)
Crossposted-To: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: Bad Sendmails with otherwise good OSes, Re: Open relays on DNS
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:21:03 GMT
Reply-To: TINLC#[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Jan 1999 20:35:01 GMT, "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
felt it essential to add to the discussion:
[snip]
>
>Unfortunately, a lot of those $3 disks also install Sendmail 8.8
>configured as an open relay. Red Hat 5.1 is one such product.
>Word hasn't gotten out as widely about this problem.
>
>Older Sun and SGI boxes have the same problem. People are "retiring"
>them to DNS and leaving the broken Sendmails running.
This is not such a bad thing. When the spammers find them, they'll go
in ORBS. The site will be notified, but their *real* mail server (and
therefore their mail service) will have been unaffected.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/ (Paul Schmehl)
Technical Support Services Manager
University of Texas at Dallas
Texas resident. Don't mess with Texas.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: pppd gurus - help, please!
Date: 21 Jan 1999 09:20:00 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clifford Kite) writes:
>Richard R Urena ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: My problem: after the modem connects and pppd starts up,
>: it dies after 10 seconds, without having established
>: a connection.
>
>: Here's the very short output on the system log:
>
>: [ chat script to dial, etc. ]
>
>: Jan 20 18:45:48 sebastian chat[1221]: CONNECT -- got it
>: Jan 20 18:45:48 sebastian chat[1221]: send (^M)
>: Jan 20 18:45:48 sebastian pppd[1217]: Serial connection established.
>: Jan 20 18:45:49 sebastian pppd[1217]: Using interface ppp0
>: Jan 20 18:45:49 sebastian pppd[1217]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/modem
>: Jan 20 18:45:58 sebastian pppd[1217]: Hangup (SIGHUP)
>: Jan 20 18:45:58 sebastian pppd[1217]: Modem hangup
>: Jan 20 18:45:58 sebastian pppd[1217]: Connection terminated.
>: Jan 20 18:45:58 sebastian pppd[1217]: Exit.
>
>Best guess at this point would be to replace the chat expect/send
><CONNECT ''> (or <CONNECT ""> with <CONNECT \\c>. This might have
>to be <CONNECT "\\c"> depending on how the script is implemented and
>read. Instead of the <send (^M) above you should get <send ()> since
>the carriage return is suppressed.
Yes, this is a common problem, and one that is solved trivially
by minicom. You can connect by hand, so do it, and record
the responses and order of responses sent by your ISP.
Some send "Username: "
Some send "Login: "
...
Then go to the chat script (I believe it is ppp-on-dialer)
and verify that the chat uses the correct strings.
Then you ought to be okelly-dokelly.
Make sure resolv.conf is set also.
>If minicom works, then it's not of family winmodem.
Good point.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: David Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: more samba problems
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:13:34 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are passwords setup? See man for smbpasswd. Also look at
encryption
in smb.conf - I think your can turn this either way but whatever
way
they have to match. But I'm familiar with NT not 98 - but saying
that
I matched the NT default in smb.conf and I can mount a linux
drive
on my 98 machine. Its interesting that the 98 is on a subnet
with its
own domain connected to an NT router which is connected to the
Linux
machine.
d
craig wrote:
>
> problem is my win 98 box cant see the linux box as far as network
> neighbourhood is concerned.
> i can mount the windows drives on the linux machine, and i can telnet to the
> linux box .
> i've spent a lot of time playing with smb.conf but to no avail.
> is it possible i'm missing something obvious?
> any help greatly appreciated.
> thanks a lot.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: weird ftp problem
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:30:39 GMT
I can't ftp to my own box. I am using SuSE 5.3 and when I anonymous ftp, it
put s me god knows where, but it isn't /home/ftp. And when I ftp -u as
myself, it puts me in / rather than /home/[user]. What file do I edit to
make it go to the right directories?
Taylor Sutherland
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Icon)
Subject: Re: Linux vs WIN NT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 00:27:29 GMT
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:07:41 +0000, Lord Spurius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Petr Sulla wrote:
>
>> Johan Wouters wrote:
>> >
>> > Any hints on where I can find any -objective?- comparisons between
>> > WIN NT and Linux? I am about to become a network administrator of
>> > 75 PC's and we have a very vivid argument about what OS our server
>> > should use. (I tend to dislike WIN NT and prefer linux!)
>> >
>> > The server has to do mail routing, web server, network routing, ftp
>> > archive and even some applications will run on it. We where thinking
>>
snip
>>
>> > about using a dual pentium II with 256MB of memory.
>> > Any hints on this subject?
>>
>> Look at http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/
>>
>> Well, Linux & Samba & Apache & Qmail & ProFTPd and you can't want
>> more... And it's for free.
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Petr Sulla (alias Pedro) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Why use Windows, WWW: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xsulla
>> when there's a door: Linux...
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hrm, if you want an objective letter, why not read something straight
>from microsoft?
>The "Halloween Documents" as they're referred were an internal microsoft
>study on
>Open Source software, primarily Linux. They were not meant to be
>released, but someone
>leaked them to the net. Microsoft admits that they are theirs.
>Warning: there is still some debate over whether the later halloween
>documents are a
>plant, so take them with a grain of salt. However, the first one is
>generally considered
>to be genuine.
>here's a mirror site in case you care to look
>http://fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de/~abe/mirrors/halloween/halloween1.html
>
> - Spurius
>"Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
>
Well, Guys
There is only one move left for M$ after Windoze 2000
and that is to make the source code available for a couple of
hunderd dollars a pop and let the Gnu Dev guys start playing with
it, thus taking from the common Anti MS mindset, leveling the playing
field and letting all the end users win.
Bill retires a very rich man and lives Happily ever after.
OK, so a few bottom feeders will get hurt, so what their rich enough.
Linux would keep a few die hards hobbiest like me wondering what if ?
And everyone will get over the computer age, and remember how
to use the other 3/5 of their brains instead of useless A .I .
beat their swords into ploughs and return to a age when everything
tasted and smelt better.
Maranatha.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: Bad Sendmails with otherwise good OSes, Re: Open relays on DNS
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 00:34:54 GMT
In article <78athd$bll$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Schmehl <TINLC#[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 Jan 1999 20:35:01 GMT, "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>felt it essential to add to the discussion:
>>Older Sun and SGI boxes have the same problem. People are "retiring"
>>them to DNS and leaving the broken Sendmails running.
>This is not such a bad thing. When the spammers find them, they'll go
>in ORBS. The site will be notified, but their *real* mail server (and
>therefore their mail service) will have been unaffected.
Except that, if the "real" mail server relays for an open relay, it gets
listed - or did they change that?
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Greer)
Subject: Re: I need a good proxy server
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:59:44 GMT
Dont use proxies.....they suck (to be frank). Use IP-Masquerading.
DrGreer
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:50:10 -0500, Peter Hernberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-->Well, I (finally) got my ethernet cards working (both of them). Now I
-->need a proxy server for my home network. If one of you gurus could
-->reccomend one, I would appreciate it. I need one with the following
-->features http (duh!), pop, and tcp and udp bridge proxying. Easy setup
-->would be a plus. Thanks in advance!
-->
-->Peter Hernberg
-->
-->
------------------------------
From: "Clifton T. Sharp Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: Bad Sendmails with otherwise good OSes, Re: Open relays on DNS
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:00:04 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah Clem wrote:
> On 22 Jan 1999 20:35:01 GMT, "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Unfortunately, a lot of those $3 disks also install Sendmail 8.8
> >configured as an open relay. Red Hat 5.1 is one such product.
> >
> My copy of RH 5.1 came with sendmail 8.8.7 and installed with relaying
> denied as the default.
Older CDs come with older sendmail versions and relaying enabled. I'll be
going to a large hamfest on Sunday, and I expect to see boxes and boxes of
such CDs priced at $1 to $5. Next month when I hit the monthly computer
show, I'll expect to see the same thing. And I imagine several people have
such an old CD sitting around somewhere, and will see no purpose in going
out to get a fresh CD to install on the old, old box.
--
| Cliff Sharp | All relevant people are pertinent. |
| WA9PDM | All rude people are impertinent. |
| | Therefore, no rude people are relevant. |
| | --Solomon W. Golomb |
------------------------------
From: Herbie van Tetering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: pppd gurus - help, please!
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:59:34 +0000
> Make sure resolv.conf is set also.
>
> >If minicom works, then it's not of family winmodem.
>
> Good point.
>
Yes indeed, Also check the chat script, usually it's also a good idea to
check for timeouts and other stuff when connected, at end of script put:
expect: TIMEOUT
send: 5
Expect: ~--
Make sure you have /etc/resolv.conf configured.
You need to put in information on your provider:
search DOMAIN_NAME < Here you put the domain name (replace DOMAIN_NAME)
nameserver IP_ADDRESS < Here ip address of 1st nameserver (idem.)
nameserver IP_ADDRESS < etc.
> --
> Dave Blake
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Charles Stack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: How to find Docs on setting up POP3 on Redhat 5.2
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 13:10:14 -0500
Install the imap RPM file from your install disks and reboot. Assuming that
you have sendmail configured correctly, that's all you need to do.
jim walski wrote in message <787na2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hello,
>
>i am trying to find some HOWTOs or documentation to set up a POP3 server on
>a Linux machine. Where can i find this? I tried searching the Internet
with
>not much luck.
>
>Thanks, jim
>
>
------------------------------
From: Jesse Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux-Linux networking problem
Date: 21 Jan 1999 13:02:35 -0500
Richard Hector writes:
> Oh - except one thing. Have you tried running tcpdump on both machines?
> Do they give the same results? (ie, do all the packets successfully
> transmitted by one, get successfully received by the other?) Not that I
> know what it proves if they don't ...
Funny you should ask...
I've made a few changes, mostly random, since the first post to see if
I could make a difference. Following the advice of the first
respondent (which you said shouldn't matter), I changed the net to
192.168.1.0.
When machine 2 pings machine 1 now, I often see differences on tcpdump
in each machine.
First, lately my problems have gotten worse: arp on machine 1 often
says incomplete address on machine 2. What the heck does that mean?
In any case, sometimes arp reports the correct address for machine 2.
If this is so (so that machine 1 CAN reply to machine 2), then machine
1 shows proper request/reply patterns during tcpdump. However,
machine 2 shows the proper request, but shows that 192.168.0.1 is
replying to 192.168.0.2 (note: my network is 192.168.1.0!). I'm
clueless.
This really looks like hardware problems to me, but remember that all
of this works fine when machine 2 is running Win95. Now, machine 2
does have a PnP modem that was interfering with the NIC when running
Linux, but I disabled the initialization of the modem during boot. I
checked to see if physically removing the modem might make a
difference, but it didn't. Thus, I assume that the modem isn't to
blame and that omitting the initialization is sufficient.
Thanks for any help. Please send a courtesy copy with any replies,
since I have trouble keeping up with this high traffic group.
--
Jesse Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jesse/jesse.html
------------------------------
From: Richard Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: How to find Docs on setting up POP3 on Redhat 5.2
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:18:59 -0800
Charles Stack wrote:
>
> Install the imap RPM file from your install disks and reboot. Assuming that
> you have sendmail configured correctly, that's all you need to do.
>
> jim walski wrote in message <787na2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Hello,
> >
> >i am trying to find some HOWTOs or documentation to set up a POP3 server on
> >a Linux machine. Where can i find this? I tried searching the Internet
> with
> >not much luck.
> >
> >Thanks, jim
> >
> >
Ah, don't reboot. After you install the RPM type `/etc/rc.d/init.d/inet
restart`.
Richard "Trey" Hyde
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: dhcp does not work with linux 2.2.0-final???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 00:19:06 GMT
I recently upgraded my kernel to 2.2.0-final and am having great success with
the exception of dhcp. I am on a fairly large network and am therefore forced
to use dhcp so this is a huge problem. I am using a DEC Tulip ethernet card
(support is compiled into the kernel and the system finds it just fine) that
is setup in my /etc/sysconfig/network-scrips to use dhcp (I am using Redhat
5.2). At boot time when network starts dhcp fails. If I attempt to start the
network manualy I recieve the same error (just as if I was not plugged in to
any network). Does anybody have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Curt Rebelein, Junior
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rebby.com/
"Computers are like air conditioners -
they stop working properly when you
open Windows."
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug DeJulio)
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ?
Date: 21 Jan 1999 13:32:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Someone could make a LOT of money if they could put together
>a turn-key Linux-based file/print server package which could
>autoconfigure most things and be really easy and helpful on
>the rest. Something you take out of the box and 20 minutes
>later you have a good working server. You can do that with
>Winders, but not with Linux unless you apparently have put
>in a tremendous number of obsessive hours.
Some people agree with you. This is exactly what Cobalt is doing, and
the product is the Qube.
The idea is that you drop it into a network, and if you have a DHCP
server, that's all. If you don't have a DHCP server, you punch in the
network address on the little keypad and LCD panel on the back, and
*that's* all. All other admin tasks are done through a web interface.
We tried one out, and it took *much* less than 20 minutes to get
something useful, and we didn't have to use our Unix expertise to do
it (although that expertise was helpful when we started doing complex
things that the typical office workgroup couldn't care less about).
--
Doug DeJulio | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HKS, Incorporated | http://www.hks.net/~ddj/
------------------------------
From: "hieninger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ping self
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:29:38 +0100
Bob schrieb in Nachricht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>hieninger wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> shouldn't it be possible to ping self under LINUX?
>> own IP 192.168.1.254
>>
>> and then
>> ping 192.168.1.254
>
>Easier because it's defaulted:
>
>ping 127.0.0.1
sorry, but this gives even less answer (none)
>
>Yes, you can ping if your ifconfig and route commands are done for
>192.168.1.*
they are, but: ;-(
>If you have two boxes then IP's would be 192.168.1.1 and 2 and that
>254 might be too high a number to plug in there.
Could you explain why, I thought I can feel free about the numbers
>I don't know about samba.
that's not a personal handicap ;-)
(because that probably means you are free of M$
>-Bob
Harro
------------------------------
From: Andrzej Filip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q]Sendmail 8.91 and relaying
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:58:10 +0100
RTFM :-) http://www,sendmail.org/faq
short version for redhat:
add IP addresses of your LAN to /etc/ip_allow in one of the following formats:
aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd
aaa.bbb.ccc
aaa.bbb
aaa
restart sendmail
--
Andrzej (Andrew) A. Filip
home e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Bergstrand wrote:
> I have sendmail working ok, except for one annoying problem.
> Relaying to outside domains fails.
>
> Sending to outside domains from an internal address works fine,
> But relaying fails.
>
> I want to allow any address from some of our subnets to relay through
> the server to any outside domain. I set up sendmail with the access
> database and specified our subnets as Relay allowable, but
> any message to an outside domain fails on the check_rcpt rule.
> (So it's not the subnet address failing, it is the recipiant that
> is causing it to fail.)
> I don't want to list every domain as relayable, since that would
> defeat the purpose of access restriction.
>
> Here is a log entry:
> Jan 20 13:05:54 cypress sendmail[30061]: NAA30061: ruleset=check_rcpt,
> arg1=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=stingray.cso.niu.edu
> [131.156.1.104], reject=550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Relaying denied
>
> If I make sendmail run in promiscous relay mode, everything works
> fine (makes sense).
>
> So how do I allow only specified subnets to send to any outside domain
> without listing every domain as relayable?
------------------------------
From: "Valery Zamarayev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Redhat Linux 5.2 Sendmail slow to authenticate sender address
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:02:13 +0300
This is certainly a DNS question. Sendmail wants to fully qualify sender's
address. Use FEATURE(nocanonify).
--
===================================================
Valery Zamarayev | Quad Damage team
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://qdamage.webjump.com
===================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in message<77s3he$v0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
..
>Linux Networking Question
> Title: "Sendmail slow authenticating addresses"
>
> From: nwaltham
>I have redhat line 5.2 and have noticed a problem. If I am in standalone ue
no
>ethernet card and no ppp connecting, sendmail accepts messages for local
>delivery rather fast. I have set up DNS and it all works fine. However if
>someone dials in with a PPP connection (the ip it uses is in the DNS)
>authentication of the address given in mail from: seems very slow, more
>han a minute. Whats it doing? Can I stop it so it goes much faster?
>
>Thanks in advance,Nicholas Waltham
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
