On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:58, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > I would be interested in the motivations and arguments anyone on the
> > list has to contradict my opinion. I'm sure it looks like I'm trying
> > to start a flame war, but I just cannot understand why anyone would
> > wish to log to a database.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 01:46:58AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > The gateways can't ping eachother
>
> Please read the documentation -> the gateways will *not* be able to ping
> each other. FreeS/WAN only routes the traffic to and from each subnet behind
> the gateway.
Actually the gateways
> Is the domain function in Samba the way to provide logon scripts to those
> clients?
Samba supports Windows NT domains in version 2.2, and this will allow you to
set up login scripts, etc.
Note that earlier versions only support "pseudo-domains" for Windows 9x
clients.
- Jeff
--
"From
Having decided to standardize on Debian for a file / mail server in a workgroup
situation, I would like to
provide roaming services to NT clients.
Is the domain function in Samba the way to provide logon scripts to those clients?
For example, user logs onto any NT box on the LAN and script se
its an option in the kernel. since I made my own it sounded nice to include
it but broke connectivity to some hosts. watch out for this guys
- Original Message -
From: "Jaume Teixi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matt Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2
matt did the track!
you-re right! now here everything connects ok!
i think that debian should consider disable tcp ecn support as default because still
there are a lot of routers around the net unsupporting it! shit!
for example here in spain:
one of the biggest hosting services http://www.ar
that is exactly what that was. thanks a million!
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Roland Krocin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: strange smtp blockings (MS DNS zone and bind 8 issue?)
> Haven't f
Haven't followed the thread closely, but have you guys looked at TCP ECN as
a possible problem? If not, this command "echo 0 >
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn" may help...
Matt.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The gateways can't ping eachother
Please read the documentation -> the gateways will *not* be able to ping
each other. FreeS/WAN only routes the traffic to and from each subnet behind
the gateway.
- Jeff
--
Toothpaste is the most important meal of the day.
--
interesting
a) I get the same behavior
b) same
c) same
d) same
e) from what I gather from a small discovery session, MTA running on a
micro$oft os have a problem with my MTAs or accepting a 'telnet 25'. now
notice that this is happening only on 2 of the 3 woody boxes (identically
configured).
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:44:25 -0400 (EDT)
Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Roland Krocin wrote:
>
> > potato or woody?
> > I'm getting the same problems on 2 out of 3 woody boxes (sendmail). the
> > third works 70% of the time. reverse dns works perfectly to all
Hello,
I don't know if this is the best mailinglist to post my question, if
not.. sorry for the inconvenience.
Anyway, my situation:
-- masq.boxA -- internet -- masq.boxB --
masq.boxA, runs the FreeSWAN daemon
eth0 = 213.51.32.x. ip (routeable)
ipsec0 is binded to eth0
eth1 = 192.168.1.1
m
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:33:05 +
Alex Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >rblcheck doesn-t show any block for its ip
> My guess is you got banned for open relayingcheck
> www.mail-abuse.org...i happen to be a first hand expert on this
> issue...heh..:)
rblcheck ~
~ not RBL filtered by
13 matches
Mail list logo
