On 03/08/2017 07:09 PM, Mark Weaver wrote:
On 03/08/2017 06:42 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
>
> > On 03/08/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hello all,
> >> >
> >> > I've been googling my brains out sin
Did I see an implicit "do as Red Hat says or else" there somewhere? Not
appropriate. Linux is not Windows (yet). In the heat of the moment it may
easily be forgotton that Linux is all about choice. We choose to run CentOS,
and we choose to run it the way we see fit. We appreciate the efforts tha
My ISP has just informed me that we will soon be required to authenticate
when connecting to their smtp server, so I've been looking around on the
web for how to do that with sendmail (just using auth when connecting
outward-bound, nothing else).
I've found a page here: http://www.sendmail.org/~ca
On 03/08/2017 06:42 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
>>
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for
>> > up-to-date information on th
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
On 03/08/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for
> up-to-date information on this matter, and have found
> information that is anywhere
On 03/08/2017 06:21 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 08.03.2017 um 22:57 schrieb Mark Weaver:
> On 03/08/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
>> I wrote this article years ago:
>>
>> https://www.madboa.com/geek/sendmail-auth/
> Hi Paul,
>
> I followed your
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:56, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/08/2017 09:39 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/08/2017 09:10 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I am currently building the latest Firefox updates and I have noticed
that
Am 08.03.2017 um 22:57 schrieb Mark Weaver:
On 03/08/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
I wrote this article years ago:
https://www.madboa.com/geek/sendmail-auth/
Hi Paul,
I followed your guide to the letter, however I think it seems I missed
somet
On 03/08/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for up-to-date
> information on this matter, and have found information that is
anywhere from
> 15 to 5 years old. I'd really like some i
On 03/08/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for up-to-date
> information on this matter, and have found information that is
anywhere from
> 15 to 5 years old. I'd really like some i
On 03/08/2017 12:34 PM, David Both wrote:
Try this article, "Outbound authentication for Sendmail."
http://www.databook.bz/?page_id=3097
I wrote this after setting it up on my own CentOS server.
Will definitely be having a look at this. The information is much
appreciated.
On 03/08/2017 10:
On 03/08/2017 11:40 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 03/08/2017 10:41 AM, Mark Weaver wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for
> up-to-date information on this matter, and have found information that
> is anywhere from 15 to 5 years old. I'd really like
Try this article, "Outbound authentication for Sendmail."
http://www.databook.bz/?page_id=3097
I wrote this after setting it up on my own CentOS server.
On 03/08/2017 10:41 AM, Mark Weaver wrote:
Hello all,
I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for
up-to-date information o
On 03/08/2017 10:41 AM, Mark Weaver wrote:
Hello all,
I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for
up-to-date information on this matter, and have found information that
is anywhere from 15 to 5 years old. I'd really like some information
that much more up to date on the sub
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Mark Weaver wrote:
Hello all,
I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for up-to-date
information on this matter, and have found information that is anywhere from
15 to 5 years old. I'd really like some information that much more up to date
on the subject.
On 03/08/2017 09:39 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 03/08/2017 09:10 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> Hi, Johnny,
>>>
>>> Johnny Hughes wrote:
I am currently building the latest Firefox updates and I have noticed
that they have u
Hello all,
I've been googling my brains out since yesterday looking for up-to-date
information on this matter, and have found information that is anywhere
from 15 to 5 years old. I'd really like some information that much more
up to date on the subject. Specifically configuring Sendmail SMTP
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 09:10 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > Hi, Johnny,
> >
> > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >> I am currently building the latest Firefox updates and I have noticed
> >> that they have upgraded the CentOS-7 Firefox from the ESR tree (45.8
On 03/08/2017 09:10 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Hi, Johnny,
>
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> I am currently building the latest Firefox updates and I have noticed
>> that they have upgraded the CentOS-7 Firefox from the ESR tree (45.8) to
>> the mainline tree (Currently firefox-52.0). They have left
On 8 March 2017 at 15:00, Giles Coochey wrote:
>
>
> On 08/03/17 14:54, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you'd like a really simple solution that avoids NetworkManager, I
>> suggest using systemd-networkd (both systemd-networkd and
>> systemd-resolved packages required). I've used it to set u
On 03/08/2017 09:07 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:
>> Am 08.03.2017 um 15:40 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
>>
>> I am currently building the latest Firefox updates and I have noticed
>> that they have upgraded the CentOS-7 Firefox from the ESR tree (45.8) to
>> the mainline tree (Currently firefox-52.0). They
Hi, Johnny,
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I am currently building the latest Firefox updates and I have noticed
> that they have upgraded the CentOS-7 Firefox from the ESR tree (45.8) to
> the mainline tree (Currently firefox-52.0). They have left EL5 and EL6
> at the ESR level (45.8.0-2).
>
> EL7:
> ht
> Am 08.03.2017 um 15:40 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
>
> I am currently building the latest Firefox updates and I have noticed
> that they have upgraded the CentOS-7 Firefox from the ESR tree (45.8) to
> the mainline tree (Currently firefox-52.0). They have left EL5 and EL6
> at the ESR level (45.8.0
On 08/03/17 14:54, Jonathan Billings wrote:
If you'd like a really simple solution that avoids NetworkManager, I
suggest using systemd-networkd (both systemd-networkd and
systemd-resolved packages required). I've used it to set up a bridge
on my workstattion for use with libvirtd/kvm, and it
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:43:57AM +, Giles Coochey wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
>
> I'm not flaming NetworkManager, I'm just stating that for many (perhaps
> most), it is over-engineered for a server orientated distribution. I can run
> with the script above on 30 ser
I am currently building the latest Firefox updates and I have noticed
that they have upgraded the CentOS-7 Firefox from the ESR tree (45.8) to
the mainline tree (Currently firefox-52.0). They have left EL5 and EL6
at the ESR level (45.8.0-2).
EL7:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0461.html
On 08/03/17 13:16, Steve Clark wrote:
Let us have a vote - how many of us do teaming/bonding/vlans on our servers?
Our networking gear does that in our installation.
The majority of my servers are virtual, if I need multiple subnets
(VLANs) then I have multiple cards.
Their throughput does n
On 8 March 2017 at 13:16, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 07:39 AM, John Hodrien wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Steve Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Yes it is really hard!
>>>
>>> ip address add 192.168.0.1/24 dev enp0s25
>>> ip route add default via 192.168.0.254 dev enp0s25
>>> echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 >
Hello David,
It was not to flame something about NetworkManager. There some
application that "needs" to wheel the old way.
I would never have thought it would be such an enlightenment for such a
small, old thing.
1. There is a file that isn't always needed (/etc/sysconfig/network)
2. I wanne hav
On 03/08/2017 07:39 AM, John Hodrien wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Steve Clark wrote:
>
>> Yes it is really hard!
>>
>> ip address add 192.168.0.1/24 dev enp0s25
>> ip route add default via 192.168.0.254 dev enp0s25
>> echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 > /etc/resolv.conf
>> echo nameserver 8.8.4.4 >> /etc/res
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Steve Clark wrote:
Yes it is really hard!
ip address add 192.168.0.1/24 dev enp0s25
ip route add default via 192.168.0.254 dev enp0s25
echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 > /etc/resolv.conf
echo nameserver 8.8.4.4 >> /etc/resolv.conf
This is still a deliberately trivial case, as alrea
On 03/08/2017 05:43 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 08/03/17 10:38, John Hodrien wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote:
ifconfig enp0s25 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
route add default gw 192.168.0.254 enp0s25
echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 > /etc/resolv.conf
echo nameserver 8.8.4.4 >> /
On 03/08/2017 05:52 AM, John Hodrien wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote:
>
>> Not really, Redhat/Centos has a lot to offer, but for me, networking is a
>> one-time configuration, and the best way to configure it is using something
>> that falls within this principle:
>>
>> https://e
Certain application doesn't like the NetworkManager
for example take a look here.
https://www.rdoproject.org/install/quickstart/
And on server stage it's better to run without
any complicate configuration tools.
Tools can make life harder in some cases.
Got many other distros run before cen
On 03/08/2017 05:43 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>
> On 08/03/17 10:38, John Hodrien wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>
>>> ifconfig enp0s25 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
>>> route add default gw 192.168.0.254 enp0s25
>>> echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 > /etc/resolv.conf
>>> echo namese
Hello James,
your right in that position. I will correct it.
Sincerely
Andy
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 8 March 2017 at 11:15, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 01:57 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The recommended configuration for EL7 is to use NetworkManager unless
>>> you have a very specific edge case preventing you from doing so:
>>>
>> The truth is a lot of us run servers that don't n
On 03/08/2017 01:57 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
The recommended configuration for EL7 is to use NetworkManager unless
you have a very specific edge case preventing you from doing so:
The truth is a lot of us run servers that don't need to have their
network "managed" by Networkmanager.
My exp
On 08/03/17 11:10, James Hogarth wrote:
On 8 March 2017 at 10:58, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 08/03/17 10:52, John Hodrien wrote:
It means you're stuck in your own hand crafted niche. Which is fine, but
it's
up to you to maintain the niche, or you find yourself using obsolete tools
like ifcon
On 8 March 2017 at 10:58, Giles Coochey wrote:
>
>
> On 08/03/17 10:52, John Hodrien wrote:
>>
>>
>> It means you're stuck in your own hand crafted niche. Which is fine, but
>> it's
>> up to you to maintain the niche, or you find yourself using obsolete tools
>> like ifconfig and route.
>>
>> I'd
On 08/03/17 10:52, John Hodrien wrote:
It means you're stuck in your own hand crafted niche. Which is fine,
but it's
up to you to maintain the niche, or you find yourself using obsolete
tools
like ifconfig and route.
I'd argue there's a gulf between keeping things simple and doing
things
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote:
Not really, Redhat/Centos has a lot to offer, but for me, networking is a
one-time configuration, and the best way to configure it is using something
that falls within this principle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
I'm not flaming Networ
On 08/03/17 10:38, John Hodrien wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote:
ifconfig enp0s25 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
route add default gw 192.168.0.254 enp0s25
echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 > /etc/resolv.conf
echo nameserver 8.8.4.4 >> /etc/resolv.conf
Oh okay, you really do want to
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote:
ifconfig enp0s25 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
route add default gw 192.168.0.254 enp0s25
echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 > /etc/resolv.conf
echo nameserver 8.8.4.4 >> /etc/resolv.conf
Oh okay, you really do want to back away from Redhat entirely. That's
e
On 08/03/17 10:15, John Hodrien wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote:
The truth is a lot of us run servers that don't need to have their
network
"managed" by Networkmanager.
You're opting to have your network managed by a bunch of unloved legacy
scripts that you're advised to avo
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote:
The truth is a lot of us run servers that don't need to have their network
"managed" by Networkmanager.
You're opting to have your network managed by a bunch of unloved legacy
scripts that you're advised to avoid using unless necessary, or you've having
The recommended configuration for EL7 is to use NetworkManager unless
you have a very specific edge case preventing you from doing so:
The truth is a lot of us run servers that don't need to have their
network "managed" by Networkmanager.
We just need to set an IP address, subnet mask, gatew
On 8 March 2017 at 06:56, Andreas Benzler wrote:
> Hello Guys,
>
> update my post, because of a route from ipv6 on same networkcard,
> with only ipv4 enabled
>
> Sincerely
>
> Andy
>
>
Please accept this as honest constructive criticism from someone who
also likes to blog.
On EL7 this is really
48 matches
Mail list logo
