Re: your mail
* Craig Schneider wrote: [...] > dpkg: error processing courier-authdaemon (--remove): > Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should > reinstall it before attempting a removal. > > Any ideas guys ? "you should reinstall it before attempting a removal" Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sendmail configure for backup mx record.
I am working on setting up a backup mx mailer for domain. It will be our first debian system we will be using for a main production system. I have read through the documentation, and it appears I have everything configured correctly. I am planning to set it up as a relay for an exchange server and a sendmail server. My original plan is to have it as a very high mx number like 99 and just verify it appears to be working on the few MTA's that attempt to relay through it. Am I missing any additional items I need to configure to keep addresses carrying over correctly to their destination machines? I really appreciate any feedback you can give on items I might be overlooking. If you can think of ANYTHING I am overlooking, let me know. As you well know when the mailserver for 800 people stop working, people get ugly. I have read existing documentation on setting up a mail hub. If you know of any documentation you think I might find useful, then let me know. Ignore additional security items such as: dnsvalid/ipvalid,connection_throttle,bad_recip_throttle as I am aware of them. mailterable and sendmail.mc listed below: /etc/mail/sendmail.mc generated using sendmailconfig in sendmail stable. divert(0)dnl # # Copyright (c) 1998-2002 Richard Nelson. All Rights Reserved. # # This file is used to configure Sendmail for use with Debian systems. define(`_USE_ETC_MAIL_')dnl include(`/usr/share/sendmail/cf/m4/cf.m4')dnl VERSIONID(`$Id: sendmail.mc, v 8.12.3-6.6 2003-09-17 18:35:09 cowboy Exp $') OSTYPE(`debian')dnl DOMAIN(`debian-mta')dnl LOCAL_CONFIG FEATURE(`nocanonify')dnl LOCAL_CONFIG Cwtraffic.cs.montana.edu FEATURE(`use_cw_file')dnl FEATURE(`use_ct_file')dnl FEATURE(`nouucp', `reject')dnl FEATURE(`mailertable')dnl FEATURE(`smrsh')dnl FEATURE(`mailertable')dnl INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`mimedefang', `S=unix:/var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock, F=T, T=S:1m;R:1m') include(`/etc/mail/dialup.m4')dnl include(`/etc/mail/provider.m4')dnl MAILER_DEFINITIONS MAILER(local)dnl MAILER(smtp)dnl LOCAL_CONFIG ## Custom configurations below (will be preserved) include(`/etc/mail/tls/starttls.m4')dnl define(`confLOG_LEVEL',`13')dnl define(`relay_hosts_only')dnl I have configured mailertable entries: FEATURE(`mailertable')dnl define(`relay_hosts_only')dnl /etc/mail/mailertable xxx.montana.edu esmtp:[xxx.montana.edu] xxx.montana.edu esmtp:[xxx.coe.montana.edu] /etc/mail/relay-domains xxx.montana.edu xxx.montana.edu -- --Luke CS Sysadmin, Montana State University-Bozeman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:00:55PM -0500, George Georgalis wrote: > I've not had time to look closely at this, but I've heard it's a > fair linux/bsd comparison > > http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/ > > let me know if anyone sees an inaccuracy! an interesting article, and (amazingly) sane and not unreasonably biased. it's billed as an introduction to BSD for Linux users. he certainly knows his BSD stuffbut he needs to read an introduction to Linux for BSD users, because doesn't know linux anywhere near as well as he knows BSD. many of the things he claims as advantages to BSD are actually common to all unix clones. e.g. his long-winded page on the "base system", makes it seem as if a base system is something magically distinct that only freebsd has. Linux distributions have had "base systems" since the early days and, just like *BSD, "base system" means that it is intended to the "base of a system". still, the article is worth reading. craig ps: yes, i *have* used both linux and *bsd extensively. my preference is Debian GNU/Linux. my second choice is FreeBSDfreebsd has some nice features and some nice ideas, it just isn't as good as debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian
--On Friday, January 23, 2004 14:14 +1100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: e.g. his long-winded page on the "base system", makes it seem as if a base system is something magically distinct that only freebsd has. Linux distributions have had "base systems" since the early days and, just like *BSD, "base system" means that it is intended to the "base of a system". I think what the author really meant was that there are so many different 'Linux' out there, Deb, RH, SuSE, ... and I can't remember any other players at the momenttoo tired but you get the idea. still, the article is worth reading. I certainly agree. -- Michael Loftis Modwest Sr. Systems Administrator Powerful, Affordable Web Hosting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian
At 2:14 PM +1100 1/23/04, Craig Sanders wrote: e.g. his long-winded page on the "base system", makes it seem as if a base system is something magically distinct that only freebsd has. Linux distributions have had "base systems" since the early days and, just like *BSD, "base system" means that it is intended to the "base of a system". Yeah? Well, two things: 1) AFAIK, only Debian has a base system that is truly a minimal install. I suppose some other distros do this now too. But a Red Hat install, for instance, is like the circus coming to town -- hardly a "base." 2) The larger, more important, point was that the userland components of the FreeBSD base are managed under source code control by the FreeBSD developers and aren't "assembled" from many places (tho mostly GNU) as Linux distros do. That said, both FreeBSD and Debian share much common philosophy. I guess that's why I like and use both! -- Ward -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian
--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 21:24 -0800 Ward Willats <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah? Well, two things: 1) AFAIK, only Debian has a base system that is truly a minimal install. I suppose some other distros do this now too. But a Red Hat install, for instance, is like the circus coming to town -- hardly a "base." And that is why I deploy servers with Debian and Jail env. with RedHat, I make the best of both worlds users want boats of programs, I want *SECURE*. I still have to be careful of userland root 'sploits and such (we all do though) but it gives a very comfortable compromise. That said, both FreeBSD and Debian share much common philosophy. I guess that's why I like and use both! ditto! -- Michael Loftis Modwest Sr. Systems Administrator Powerful, Affordable Web Hosting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:24:15PM -0800, Ward Willats wrote: > At 2:14 PM +1100 1/23/04, Craig Sanders wrote: > >e.g. his long-winded page on the "base system", makes it seem as if a base > >system is something magically distinct that only freebsd has. Linux > >distributions have had "base systems" since the early days and, just like > >*BSD, "base system" means that it is intended to the "base of a system". > > Yeah? Well, two things: > > 1) AFAIK, only Debian has a base system that is truly a minimal install. I > suppose some other distros do this now too. But a Red Hat install, for > instance, is like the circus coming to town -- hardly a "base." debian isn't the only linux distribution to have a base system. SLS had one. Slackware had (still has?) one. MCC (if anyone can remember it) had one. these are all dating back to 1993 or 1994, so it's not exactly a new concept in the linux world. > 2) The larger, more important, point was that the userland components of the > FreeBSD base are managed under source code control by the FreeBSD developers > and aren't "assembled" from many places (tho mostly GNU) as Linux distros do. i think it's a bogus distinction. the implication he is making is that because there are separate & distinct upstream developers for MOST packages(*) in Linux, that means that these packages are not integrated into the system, that the act of packaging is just a quick-and-dirty compile to make a binary. this may be true for (some packages in) RH and other distros, but it is certainly not true for Debian. BTW, it's not even a true distinction. as you note yourself, the base packages ARE mostly from GNU, and they are as consistent with each other as the equivalents from BSD (but the GNU versions of common tools tend to be vastly superior). (*) he conveniently ignores packages where the upstream author and, e.g., the debian maintainer are the same person...ditto for packages authored by RH and other distro employees. > That said, both FreeBSD and Debian share much common philosophy. I guess > that's why I like and use both! yep. i think it is odd that he claims that gentoo is the closest linux distro to freebsd, when the only similarity is a superficial resemblance of PORTAGE to the BSD ports system. and that's all it is, a superficial resemblance. debian's policies and attention to detail and focus on making an integrated system are, IMO, much more similar to freebsd's philosophy. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: your mail
* Craig Schneider wrote: [...] > dpkg: error processing courier-authdaemon (--remove): > Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should > reinstall it before attempting a removal. > > Any ideas guys ? "you should reinstall it before attempting a removal" Norbert
sendmail configure for backup mx record.
I am working on setting up a backup mx mailer for domain. It will be our first debian system we will be using for a main production system. I have read through the documentation, and it appears I have everything configured correctly. I am planning to set it up as a relay for an exchange server and a sendmail server. My original plan is to have it as a very high mx number like 99 and just verify it appears to be working on the few MTA's that attempt to relay through it. Am I missing any additional items I need to configure to keep addresses carrying over correctly to their destination machines? I really appreciate any feedback you can give on items I might be overlooking. If you can think of ANYTHING I am overlooking, let me know. As you well know when the mailserver for 800 people stop working, people get ugly. I have read existing documentation on setting up a mail hub. If you know of any documentation you think I might find useful, then let me know. Ignore additional security items such as: dnsvalid/ipvalid,connection_throttle,bad_recip_throttle as I am aware of them. mailterable and sendmail.mc listed below: /etc/mail/sendmail.mc generated using sendmailconfig in sendmail stable. divert(0)dnl # # Copyright (c) 1998-2002 Richard Nelson. All Rights Reserved. # # This file is used to configure Sendmail for use with Debian systems. define(`_USE_ETC_MAIL_')dnl include(`/usr/share/sendmail/cf/m4/cf.m4')dnl VERSIONID(`$Id: sendmail.mc, v 8.12.3-6.6 2003-09-17 18:35:09 cowboy Exp $') OSTYPE(`debian')dnl DOMAIN(`debian-mta')dnl LOCAL_CONFIG FEATURE(`nocanonify')dnl LOCAL_CONFIG Cwtraffic.cs.montana.edu FEATURE(`use_cw_file')dnl FEATURE(`use_ct_file')dnl FEATURE(`nouucp', `reject')dnl FEATURE(`mailertable')dnl FEATURE(`smrsh')dnl FEATURE(`mailertable')dnl INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`mimedefang', `S=unix:/var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock, F=T, T=S:1m;R:1m') include(`/etc/mail/dialup.m4')dnl include(`/etc/mail/provider.m4')dnl MAILER_DEFINITIONS MAILER(local)dnl MAILER(smtp)dnl LOCAL_CONFIG ## Custom configurations below (will be preserved) include(`/etc/mail/tls/starttls.m4')dnl define(`confLOG_LEVEL',`13')dnl define(`relay_hosts_only')dnl I have configured mailertable entries: FEATURE(`mailertable')dnl define(`relay_hosts_only')dnl /etc/mail/mailertable xxx.montana.edu esmtp:[xxx.montana.edu] xxx.montana.edu esmtp:[xxx.coe.montana.edu] /etc/mail/relay-domains xxx.montana.edu xxx.montana.edu -- --Luke CS Sysadmin, Montana State University-Bozeman
Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:00:55PM -0500, George Georgalis wrote: > I've not had time to look closely at this, but I've heard it's a > fair linux/bsd comparison > > http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/ > > let me know if anyone sees an inaccuracy! an interesting article, and (amazingly) sane and not unreasonably biased. it's billed as an introduction to BSD for Linux users. he certainly knows his BSD stuffbut he needs to read an introduction to Linux for BSD users, because doesn't know linux anywhere near as well as he knows BSD. many of the things he claims as advantages to BSD are actually common to all unix clones. e.g. his long-winded page on the "base system", makes it seem as if a base system is something magically distinct that only freebsd has. Linux distributions have had "base systems" since the early days and, just like *BSD, "base system" means that it is intended to the "base of a system". still, the article is worth reading. craig ps: yes, i *have* used both linux and *bsd extensively. my preference is Debian GNU/Linux. my second choice is FreeBSDfreebsd has some nice features and some nice ideas, it just isn't as good as debian.
Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian
--On Friday, January 23, 2004 14:14 +1100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: e.g. his long-winded page on the "base system", makes it seem as if a base system is something magically distinct that only freebsd has. Linux distributions have had "base systems" since the early days and, just like *BSD, "base system" means that it is intended to the "base of a system". I think what the author really meant was that there are so many different 'Linux' out there, Deb, RH, SuSE, ... and I can't remember any other players at the momenttoo tired but you get the idea. still, the article is worth reading. I certainly agree. -- Michael Loftis Modwest Sr. Systems Administrator Powerful, Affordable Web Hosting
Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian
At 2:14 PM +1100 1/23/04, Craig Sanders wrote: e.g. his long-winded page on the "base system", makes it seem as if a base system is something magically distinct that only freebsd has. Linux distributions have had "base systems" since the early days and, just like *BSD, "base system" means that it is intended to the "base of a system". Yeah? Well, two things: 1) AFAIK, only Debian has a base system that is truly a minimal install. I suppose some other distros do this now too. But a Red Hat install, for instance, is like the circus coming to town -- hardly a "base." 2) The larger, more important, point was that the userland components of the FreeBSD base are managed under source code control by the FreeBSD developers and aren't "assembled" from many places (tho mostly GNU) as Linux distros do. That said, both FreeBSD and Debian share much common philosophy. I guess that's why I like and use both! -- Ward
