On Tuesday, March 09, 2021 03:54:18 PM David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 09 Mar 2021 at 08:12:47 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have DSL service, and a spare modem that I've occasionally put in
> > service (for testing the "main" modem) and have not had to notify the
> > ISP. (They were both
t with PPP on top
of it). PPPoE. In bridge mode you run PPP on your PC and MAC address may be
important
(sometimes it is not not, if your ISP uses PAP or CHAP to authenticate
you). In router mode PPP runs on your modem and PC MAC address is
irrelevant.
Most ISPs in my country prefer to run
My sanity requires top-posting:
See your very last sentence:
You go to an HTTP port at a non-routable address which should be on the
box. Usually on a yellow sticker. Now I've never tried to program that
interaction but I bet it could be done. For comparison, biggish Juniper
routers are configured
Change of topic overdue:
On Tue 09 Mar 2021 at 00:12:40 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
> David Wright composed on 2021-03-08 22:37 (UTC-0600):
> > On Sun 07 Mar 2021 at 21:37:37 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> Having != connected. The extras are spares. :)
>
> > I realise that, but if your servi
On 16/10/2020, Brett Gilio wrote:
> "Susmita/Rajib" writes:
>
>> So far as I am concerned I have temporarily put the thread to rest.
>
> Stay well, these are hard times. We only have each other.
>
> Best
... ... [snipped] ... ... [snipped]
...
developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops?
To: Susmita/Rajib
Cc: Dan Ritter , debian-user@lists.debian.org
"Susmita/Rajib" writes:
... ... [snipped] ... ...
"Susmita/Rajib" writes:
> So far as I am concerned I have temporarily put the thread to rest.
Stay well, these are hard times. We only have each other.
Best
--
Brett M. Gilio
bre...@gnu.org
https://brettgilio.com/
E82A C026 95D6 FF02 43CA 1E5C F6C5 2DD1 BA27 CB87
"Susmita/Rajib" writes:
> Having studied physics I have come across many epoch-making twists
> when established mathematicians of their eras have been dethroned by
> new experiments and subsequently new invention/discoveries.
>
> I continue to remember that we are only slightly evolved irrational
-- Received message --
From: Dan Ritter
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 14:16:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops?
To: Susmita/Rajib
Cc: debian-user
...
>
> But Sir, I have a living example in openwrt and routers based on it.
> Also dispatch-proxy as a crude first step. And they work for multiple
> ISPs and VPN. If they could do it, then why not GNU/Linux including
> Debian? We could have software routing devices
-- Received message --
From: Dan Ritter
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:54:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops?
To: Susmita/Rajib
Cc: debian-user
ndow is not in seconds, but in packets.
> Next:
> [Quote]
> ... A virtual packet-holding
> memory defined in systems to have the packets fit in their intended
> places.
> [/Quote]
> This part must surely need improvement. Otherwise, restrictions of
> data transmission spee
he idea of "TCP window" would have been non-existant...
Next:
[Quote]
... A virtual packet-holding
memory defined in systems to have the packets fit in their intended
places.
[/Quote]
This part must surely need improvement. Otherwise, restrictions of
data transmission speeds over mult
or destroy it. If the packet goes to the best
available path, it is now the next inspector's problem. If the
packet goes to a siding, it may be put on the right path soon,
but if the siding fills up, it will be destroyed.
The destruction of the packet is the second source of packet loss
--
From: Dan Ritter
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:42:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops?
To: Susmita/Rajib
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On 15/10/2020, Dan Ritter wrote
Susmita/Rajib wrote:
> -- Received message --
> From: Dan Ritter
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:46:25 -0400
> Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
> internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
> Lap- /Desk- t
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:04:47AM +0100, Tixy wrote:
[...]
> I just put these things down to cultural differences [...]
Exactly. This mailing list's cultural scope is broad, to put
it mildly.
I, for my part, am reminded how rude "our" (some non-exclusive, but
also non-exhaustive subset of time
On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 17:55 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 14 oct 20, 15:31:14, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
> > To,
> > The Team User,
> > debian-user@lists.debian.org,
> > Debian.org
> >
> > My dear illustrious Team User Leaders,
> >
> > Good afternoon, leaders.
>
> Hello,
>
> The debian-user
-- Received message --
From: Dan Ritter
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:46:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops?
To: Susmita/Rajib
Cc: debian-user
-- Received message --
From: Nicholas Geovanis
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:57:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops?
To: Susmita/Rajib , Debian Users ML
-- Recieved message --
From: Andrei POPESCU
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 17:55:33 +0300
Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops?
To: Susmita/Rajib
Cc: debian-user
different ways
than you will.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 9:21 AM Susmita/Rajib wrote:
> -- Received message --
> From: Dan Ritter
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:17:25 -0400
> Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
> internet access, using in parallel mul
olleague, not a superior).
Addressing us with such formality is... hilarious :)
> My post at the Debian Forums may please be perused here:
> Faster internet access by parallelly using multiple ISPs
> http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=147081#p727593
>
> There's a softwar
Susmita/Rajib wrote:
> -- Received message --
> Wow! Unbelievable, Dr. Ritter, but I understood your line of reasoning.
I don't think my family has a Dr. Ritter in it, although several
of my cousins have doctorates (medical, ceramic engineering,
physics...)
> Okay, but then some
-- Received message --
From: Dan Ritter
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:17:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Debian developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops?
To: Susmita/Rajib
Cc: debian-user
ve multiple USB ports in our laptops/dektops, and smartphones
> with USB ports and opportunity for USB tethering and internet access
> from the smartphone's mobile Network provider using SIM cards.
>
> I wish to use two ISPs, i.e., two snartphones in USB teethering, and
> com
-- Received message --
From: Nicholas Geovanis
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:22:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Has Debian developers contemplated means of faster
internet access, using in parallel multiple ISPs from Debian installed
Lap- /Desk- tops
To: Susmita/Rajib , Debian Users ML
Debian
e Team User,
> debian-user@lists.debian.org,
> Debian.org
>
> My dear illustrious Team User Leaders,
>
> Good afternoon, leaders.
>
> My post at the Debian Forums may please be perused here:
> Faster internet access by parallelly using multiple ISPs
> http://forums.d
To,
The Team User,
debian-user@lists.debian.org,
Debian.org
My dear illustrious Team User Leaders,
Good afternoon, leaders.
My post at the Debian Forums may please be perused here:
Faster internet access by parallelly using multiple ISPs
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14
To,
The Team User,
debian-user@lists.debian.org,
Debian.org
My dear illustrious Team User Leaders,
Good afternoon, leaders.
My post at the Debian Forums may please be perused here:
Faster internet access by parallelly using multiple ISPs
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14
To,
The Team User,
debian-user@lists.debian.org,
Debian.org
My dear illustrious Team User Leaders,
Good afternoon, leaders.
My post at the Debian Forums may please be perused here:
Faster internet access by parallelly using multiple ISPs
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14
Hi,
I'm considering options to bond multiple DSL connections. I'm not
looking at load balancing, but true bonding.
This is a link that describes what I would like to be able to achieve:
http://www.fusionbroadband.com.au/virtual_fibre.php
- refers to a bonding link as part of this
What I
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:26:22PM +0800, John Marvin L. Magsino wrote:
> i have 2 ISPs ( 2 routers which act as a gateway) and a debian Box running
> Apache + PHP + Mysql. what i wanted to do is to make the debian box port
> forwarded to both the ISPs.
it should
have a look here for a list
http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 03:37:53PM +1000, Rich Healey wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> biaAlex Samad wrote:
> [snip]
> > I would also suggest make the adsl modem (routers?) in bridged mode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
biaAlex Samad wrote:
[snip]
> I would also suggest make the adsl modem (routers?) in bridged mode and
> firewall up the debian box and do it all there. Similiar to what I have done.
> The only
> difference right now is i use openwrt (linux distro for
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 08:55:40AM +0200, NN_il_Confusionario wrote:
> > * From: "John Marvin L. Magsino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > would there be a way for me to serve my debian box application using the
> > 2 public IPs
>
> search the net for lartc
>
> (for example, you could use two diffe
> * From: "John Marvin L. Magsino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> would there be a way for me to serve my debian box application using the 2
> public IPs
search the net for lartc
(for example, you could use two different ip on the debian box and use
source routing)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
J, thanks for the rep. It worked for now... i'm still monitoring the anacron
you told me.
anyways, i was wondering if anyone can help me again with another problem i
have right now. i dont know if somebody Did this.
i have 2 ISPs ( 2 routers which act as a gateway) and a debian Box ru
Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have a look at my headers, should be the same (I am using a similar
> setup with postfix). Didn't have any troubles so far (though I am
> subscribed to the whitelist for Debian lists).
Cool. I guess I picked the wrong week to clean out my mailboxes
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 06:24:32PM -0600, cothrige wrote:
[...]
> Should I be concerned about these headers? If so, how can I address
> changing this behaviour. Should exim4 be hiding the local address even
> in these rather than just the from?
Have a look at my headers, should be the same (I
I recently took a look at the headers of some of my mail I sent to my
yahoo account from my ISP mail account, and saw some odd stuff which
made me wonder if perhaps my setup is goofed up. I am curious if
perhaps something like this may cause my mail to be seen as spam or the
like, and thought I w
at second ISP has no SMTP server, so I
thought of a neat rule that would cover both ISPs: first try to
deliver an email directly, then if rejected ("we don't accept mail
from known dialups", etc.), try thru myisp.com... how does one write
that?
BTW, my setup is fine but sometimes
| Cox Cable did the same thing with port 80 soon after Code Red
| struck. Yet another reason why I hate MSFT and lusers.
|
| At the same time, they decided to be really anal and block port
| 25, too. Bah!
|
>From the COX support pages FAQ
Question:
What ports do you block?
Answer:
We blo
-- Gerald Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 10 October 2002, 04:35 PM -0500):
> On 10 Oct 2002 11:24:36 -0500
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 14:22, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:13:42 +0200
> > > Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi ya
attbi is trying to prevent users from running servers at home
( think its a hopeless problem but they can keep trying
i say, sooner or later, tv signals from lot more tv viewers
will pay the price since they all share the same cable...
( another il-concieved idea?? - good enough for now
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:35:36PM -0500, Gerald Livingston wrote:
> Time Warner blocked 80 here but they are polite enough to scan 25 for
> open relays. From the rejected messages in Exim it appears that if they
> find one they will at least inform you before locking it down. (Messages
> deleted
On 10 Oct 2002 11:24:36 -0500
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 14:22, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:13:42 +0200
> > Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I know it's rather silly to reply on your on post, but I did some
> > more research...
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 14:22, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:13:42 +0200
> Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is slightly offtopic, but I didn't got a relevant answer in other
> > places, so I thought lets ask my debian friends ;)
> >
> > I had my apache
$ products are so enlightend to choose a blank admin password, this
> is a security issue.
Right, I think it's SMB file sharing without NetBIOS. Some ISPs block
off the netbios ports for the same reason. I don't know of any other
standard services running on those ports, so it&#
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:13:42 +0200
Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is slightly offtopic, but I didn't got a relevant answer in other
> places, so I thought lets ask my debian friends ;)
>
> I had my apache listening on port 445 for https connections, this
> worked perfect
Hi,
This is slightly offtopic, but I didn't got a relevant answer in other places, so I
thought lets ask my debian friends ;)
I had my apache listening on port 445 for https connections, this worked
perfectly for a long time. Today I got a message from a user stating
that he couldn't get a con
>
> Great. This will be simple.
>
It's looking good. Thanks for the tips. If this message works, then it's
looking very promising.
Dougie
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:40:01PM +0100, Dougie Nisbet wrote:
| My ISP (uklinux) allows me to send mail via their servers when
| logged connected from a different ISP, as long as I provide
| authorisation.
Great. This will be simple.
| I can't figure out how to set things up to do this. I
thost
smarthost:
driver = domainlist
transport = remote_smtp
route_list = "* mail.btinternet.com bydns_a"
end
BTInternet is my usual connection, but now I'm connecting a lot more to
different ISPs. I would like to set things up to always send mai
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 12:00:13AM -0500, Pat Mahoney wrote:
>
> I'd be interested to see what they plan on doing. If it's as simple
> as 'startx -- :1' to get rid of the advertisements, how can they
> convince their advertisers that the ads will be seen?
Nah, have some fun with it! Install blas
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 09:24:03PM -0700, John Bagdanoff wrote:
> Keep an eye on this site.
>
> http://beta.freei.net/
>
> Click on beta release. Not sure how soon they'll have a linux port to
> test.
>
> fred
>
> --
>
> Using Linux
>
>
>
>
Keep an eye on this site.
http://beta.freei.net/
Click on beta release. Not sure how soon they'll have a linux port to
test.
fred
--
Using Linux
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 09:53:37AM -0700, Jonathan Markevich wrote:
>
> --- Chris Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 04:48:16AM -0700, Jonathan Markevich wrote:
> > >
> > > As for Freewwweb, STAY AWAY. They have no clue how to run a SMTP
> > > server. I get ALL of my ma
--- Chris Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 04:48:16AM -0700, Jonathan Markevich wrote:
> >
> > As for Freewwweb, STAY AWAY. They have no clue how to run a SMTP
> > server. I get ALL of my mail bounced back to me because they
> don't
> > have a record of valid dial-up IP
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 04:48:16AM -0700, Jonathan Markevich wrote:
>
> As for Freewwweb, STAY AWAY. They have no clue how to run a SMTP
> server. I get ALL of my mail bounced back to me because they don't
> have a record of valid dial-up IP assignments. (e.g. This message was
> cut and pasted
> I just subscribed to this list about five minutes ago, because I
need to get
> a free ISP account going under my Debian Slink. I don't care who
it's with
> (excite, xoom, etc), as long as I can get it to work. I think the
problem is
> that I need the DNS nameservers (or at least with PPPconfi
Cameron Matheson wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I just subscribed to this list about five minutes ago, because I need to get
> a free ISP account going under my Debian Slink.
I'm not sure how subscribing to this list helps you get a free ISP
account going, unless all you need is the answer to finding the
Hey,
I just subscribed to this list about five minutes ago, because I need to get
a free ISP account going under my Debian Slink. I don't care who it's with
(excite, xoom, etc), as long as I can get it to work. I think the problem is
that I need the DNS nameservers (or at least with PPPconfig)
On 11 Mar, Joel Roth wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Jason Christensen wrote:
>>
>> Then I would be upset with my provider, as much of my mail would never be
>> delivered. Most of the net will refuse to propogate mail from a non-secure
>> server. (I've had this experience before)
>
> I don't under
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Jason Christensen wrote:
>
> Then I would be upset with my provider, as much of my mail would never be
> delivered. Most of the net will refuse to propogate mail from a non-secure
> server. (I've had this experience before)
I don't understand what your problem is with using
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Jason Christensen wrote:
> Do you know for a fact that the SMTP servers at both your ISPs are
> configured to NOT relay mail. Perhaps one of the servers will work for
> both connections.
Then I would be upset with my provider, as much of my mail would never be
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, David Wright wrote:
>
> Is there anything to prevent you running two instances of Pine, one
> pointing to each ISP's server?
>
If you run two instances of Pine on the same mailbox, one or both get
forced into read-only mode, so you can't reply :-(
Luck,
Dwarf
Do you know for a fact that the SMTP servers at both your ISPs are
configured to NOT relay mail. Perhaps one of the servers will work for
both connections.
It's not necessarily a good thing as it indicates that one or both of your
ISPs are not spam conscious, however it would save you a l
Jason Christensen wrote:
> The script could look at another file (/etc/resolv.conf maybe) for domain
> info that was set by your connection software. I know that dhcpcd sets
> the domain in my resolv.conf. I'm not sure what pppd does as it has been
> a couple of years since I have used it.
Pppconf
Quoting Dale Scheetz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> This is "last resort" as I don't want to have to restart pine every time
> the link changes.
> Switching back and forth between the two ISPs, while not difficult is a
> bit obnoxious. It would be much nicer to ha
gives me a configuration for
my EarthLink account, while loging in as dwarf gives a pine that uses the
server at TalStar. Whichever account the machine is currently logged into,
that user's pine will function correctly while the other one will not.
Switching back and forth between the two IS
How handy are you with text processing scripting languages (i.e. Perl,
awk, etc.)?
My thought is that you could create a script that edits your .pinerc file
prior to starting pine. The script could look at another file
(/etc/resolv.conf maybe) for domain info that was set by your connection
softwa
I just added a second ISP to my resources, and I can seem to manage
everything but smtp for pine. In the pine configuration there is a slot to
put the smtp server, but I can only use the server provided by the ISP
that I am logged into at the time, as neither one allows relays. I can
reconfigure ev
Jan,
The first IP address worked fine for me. I did not try the second
one though. You can give it a try yourself. Go to the command prompt,
and enter this:
nslookup [ENTER]
server 193.189.224.2 [ENTER]
www.yahoo.com [ENTER]
The abovementioned DNS server (193.189.224.2) will
le
slower at first than using a forwarder, but the entries you use will
stay in cache and you won't have to deal with the hassles of screwed up
setups at your isp.
Just make sure you have a valid root cache file (which was installed
when you installed bind iirc) and you should be fine.
I st
ice, though,
your old ISP's servers will work fine with the new ISP. Just leave them as
is until you decide what you are going to do.
> I am wondering if there are other people who have had to keep two (or
> more ISPs) and what other things they have had to configure, setup,
> etc. f
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 09:13:14AM -0600, Nitebirdz wrote:
> Salman,
>
> As far as I know, DNS servers are public. In other words, you can
> contact them to resolve domains no matter which ISP you are connecting
> with. I have been configuring my resolv.conf for DNS servers that do not
unf
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Phil Brutsche wrote:
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
>
> > I am currently in the process of evaluating a new ISP. The problem I am
> > having is with the nameserver settings in /etc/resolv.conf.
>
> Ok.
>
> > Currently there are two entries in
f but only two of them
> are "valid" depending on which ISP I am connecting to/from ??
>
> I am wondering if there are other people who have had to keep two (or more
> ISPs) and what other things they have had to configure, setup, etc. for the
> different ISPs ??
>
Eric G . Miller writes:
> Before filing a bug, make sure one of the two ISP configurations is named
> "provider".
That would not cause a segfault. If it did it would still be a bug.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 10:38:11PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Salman Ahmed writes:
> > /usr/bin/pon: line 2: 1890 Segmentation fault /usr/sbin/pppd call
> > ${1:-provider}
> > Exit 139
>
> You should file a bug against ppp.
Before filing a bug, make sure one of the two ISP configurations is
you can add the other ips, i think you can have a max of 4.
but unless the isps are controlling access to their DNS (most don't for
normal queries) there's no need to add the other ips if your just using as
a temp measure.
nate
[mailto:[EMAIL
Salman Ahmed writes:
> /usr/bin/pon: line 2: 1890 Segmentation fault /usr/sbin/pppd call
> ${1:-provider}
> Exit 139
You should file a bug against ppp.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
ISP I am connecting to/from ??
Just leave your resolv.conf as it is while you evaluate the new ISP. Only
the first nameserver that works will be used, and the resolver won't pay
any attention to any after the first three in any case.
> I am wondering if there are other people who have had to
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
> I am currently in the process of evaluating a new ISP. The problem I am
> having is with the nameserver settings in /etc/resolv.conf.
Ok.
> Currently there are two entries in /etc/resolv.conf for my present ISP
> (Interlog).
>
> Shoul
Hi,
I'm with Force9 and although they don't officially support Linux, they do have
an FAQ and several of the users are using Linux. They also have a linux server
where you can get a shell and you have a cgi-bin directory to play with.
The address is www.force9.co.uk, give them a go.
--
Andy Hol
Robert wrote:
> Dont forget your small neighborhood ISP's. The smaller they are the better
> the service and the more knowledgeable (most of the time?) the employees.
> Robert
Tremendously good advice. If you know your ISP's sysadmin, you're set. (If
he's a debian developer, you're _really_ set. I
On 08 Jun 1999, F.P. Groeneveld wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> : Are there any nationwide ISPs around for Linux users? I'm using AOL,
> : which doesn't support Linux, and there aren't any Linux ISPs in my area.
> : It'd make it a lot easier on me fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Are there any nationwide ISPs around for Linux users? I'm using AOL,
: which doesn't support Linux, and there aren't any Linux ISPs in my area.
: It'd make it a lot easier on me for upgrading if I could get onto the
: internet. Does anyone know o
On 3 Jun 1999, Colin Marquardt wrote:
> Starting with pppd-2.3.7, you don?t even need the DNS addresses. Search
> for the option "usepeerdns" in /usr/doc/ppp/README.gz and take a look
> at /usr/doc/ppp/examples/scripts/ip-up.local.add
This only works if the other end is set up to give you the DNS
* Michael Procario <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> support site, but you do not even need those. You need the DNS server
> addresses and the phone number. I use wvdial (its comes with Debian) to do
> the
Starting with pppd-2.3.7, you don´t even need the DNS addresses. Search
for the option "use
I use Netcom (now Mindspring) they have pages on using Linux buried in their
support site, but you do not even need those. You need the DNS server
addresses and the phone number. I use wvdial (its comes with Debian) to do the
dialup and it is very simple.
_
Linux. In other words, Mindspring, Concentric, Verio,
> >Netcom ... all work just fine.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Are there any nationwide ISPs around for Linux users? I'm using AOL,
> which
> >> doesn't s
o
>allows their users some access to the internet.
>
>2. Any ISP that does not require proprietary software to connect should
>work just fine with Linux. In other words, Mindspring, Concentric, Verio,
>Netcom ... all work just fine.
>
>
>
>On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 [EMAIL PROT
Any ISP which can use plain vanilla Windows Dialup Networking ought to (in
general anyway) work. Examples I've used
Netcom / Mindspring
Earthlink
AT&T
MCI
IBM
Baby Bells (regional phone company)
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are there any nationwide ISPs arou
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:42:22PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are there any nationwide ISPs around for Linux users? I'm using AOL, which
> doesn't support Linux, and there aren't any Linux ISPs in my area. It'd make
> it a lot easier on me for upgrading if
Are there any nationwide ISPs around for Linux users? I'm using AOL, which
doesn't support Linux, and there aren't any Linux ISPs in my area. It'd make
it a lot easier on me for upgrading if I could get onto the internet. Does
anyone know of anything like this?
Colin Winters
Hello,
> How do I detect which isp I am using, and automatically export the
> correct proxy settings??
>
> PS: I am not using pon & poff. I use my own dial up scripts...
If you want to do it in an ip-up.d script, check the variable PPP_REMOTE.
Perhaps something like:
=-=-=-=
#!/bin
Hi all,
How do I detect which isp I am using, and automatically export the
correct proxy settings??
PS: I am not using pon & poff. I use my own dial up scripts...
Thx
Regards,
Shao.
attle, then you need a nice interface to generate
these files automatically and copy them to their respective locations
before connecting to the desired ISP. And all of this needs to be
doable by a user in the proper group, as well as root. Personally I'd
have no problem with requiring r
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
