Hello,
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Sean Farley wrote:
> I previously posted this on comp.mail.sendmail and freebsd-questions.
> After no answer and some extra testing, I believe this probably belongs
> here.
>
>
>
> I need some help debugging a problem I am having with setting up Sendmail.
>
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I only wish it to receive on the LAN (192.168.1.0) and the analog modem
> >(216.140.158.72). This is easy to change (DAEMON_OPTIONS), but I just
> >can't get confCLIENT_OPTIONS to work. From looking at sendmail.cf, I can
> >see that it is b
>I only wish it to receive on the LAN (192.168.1.0) and the analog modem
>(216.140.158.72). This is easy to change (DAEMON_OPTIONS), but I just
>can't get confCLIENT_OPTIONS to work. From looking at sendmail.cf, I can
>see that it is being set:
>
># SMTP client options
>O ClientPortOptions=Famil
I previously posted this on comp.mail.sendmail and freebsd-questions.
After no answer and some extra testing, I believe this probably belongs
here.
I need some help debugging a problem I am having with setting up Sendmail.
Previously, I have been using Exim, but I have decided to try my
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:45:25PM -0500, Jim King wrote:
> Is BSS actually a different mode, or a synonym for something else? For the
> Aironet both ancontrol(8) and the Windows driver configuration use the terms
> "ad-hoc" and "infrastructure" for the two available modes.
Most people are using
Is BSS actually a different mode, or a synonym for something else? For the
Aironet both ancontrol(8) and the Windows driver configuration use the terms
"ad-hoc" and "infrastructure" for the two available modes.
Jim
"Wesley Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the aironet drivers are anythin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Well, we have Intel's Express 510T switch... I tried to grep the
> manual for "EtherChannel", it is not there... But the switch looks
> impressive, so may be it is just called something else?
I know that Sun call this concept "trunking". Other things you might
look
On 25 Apr, Brooks Davis wrote:
= On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:33:17PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
= > In our load tests we seem to be maxing out the 100Mb full duplex
= > network card (fxp0).
= >
= > The machine has two such cards on the motherboard. How can we use
= > both of them transpar
On 26 Apr 2001 14:29:23 -0400, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>> I remeber there being some sort of issue with large number of
>> interfaces, however I think it was trivial to fix and may have
>> already been.
>
>Actually no; at least not in 4.2-R. See the following PR:
>
>
At 01:02 AM 4/27/2001 +0400, Vladimir B. Grebenschikov wrote:
>I have machine vith 18 running interfaces, most of them VLAN
>interfaces, but there are some LAN and WAN. It successful transfer
>about 60-80Mbit/s (~90 in peak). Most of traffic goes throug Intel
>EtherExpress ethernet NICs.
Thanks
Hello,
I have some NICs Forerunner LE 25 and I need a drive for Freebsd, does
Anyone know where I can find it?
Thanks,
Mercia
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
At 08:16 PM 4/26/01 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hmmm.. This does look interesting. Note that there is way more bandwidth
> > than I need. Like I said, I am only going to push tops 30Mb/s through the
> > thing. The cisco would certainly do the job, but I am still looking at 10
> > times t
I have a laptop and a desktop, each with a Cisco
Aironet 350 802.11b wireless NIC. I'm trying to get them talking to each
other in ad hoc mode. The laptop runs Win2000 and the desktop dual boots
Win2000 and FreeBSD 4.3-stable. With both boxes running Win2000 things
work fine. When I boot
At 07:32 PM 4/26/01 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>As long as you're just doing Ethernet, you might want to consider the
>2948G-L3 as an alternative to a 3640. IP routing in hardware, 48 10/100
>ports and 2 Gigabit ports. *Way* more backplane bandwidth and pps than
>the 3640. Con: No access list
Hi,
> I remeber there being some sort of issue with large number of
> interfaces, however I think it was trivial to fix and may have
> already been.
Actually no; at least not in 4.2-R. See the following PR:
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=11525
Those issues weren't exactly
> Hmmm.. This does look interesting. Note that there is way more bandwidth
> than I need. Like I said, I am only going to push tops 30Mb/s through the
> thing. The cisco would certainly do the job, but I am still looking at 10
> times the cost. If I need to spend the money I will, I just hat
> I have the need to put together a somewhat largish VLAN router (larger than
> I have done before) with about 35 interfaces. Has anyone put anything like
> this together ? The box would be routing about 25-30Mb at peak rate. I
> recall reading something about LINUX being very inefficient wh
* Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 08:27] wrote:
>
> I have the need to put together a somewhat largish VLAN router (larger than
> I have done before) with about 35 interfaces. Has anyone put anything like
> this together ? The box would be routing about 25-30Mb at peak rate. I
> rec
I have the need to put together a somewhat largish VLAN router (larger than
I have done before) with about 35 interfaces. Has anyone put anything like
this together ? The box would be routing about 25-30Mb at peak rate. I
recall reading something about LINUX being very inefficient when it c
gunther> PS: BTW, now that fbsd 4.3-RELEASE is out, when are you
gunther> planning to put the SNAP kit on the basis of 4.3? KAME has
gunther> precedence for me right now, so I won't move to 4.3 before
gunther> the first SNAP kit is based on 4.3.
Next SNAP will be based on 4.3-RELEASE.
We've alre
> Now, back to Gunther's request - could you do IPSec over PPP over TCP?
But of course :-) You can even do NAT in this scenario if required -
as the NAT will happen before the data is encapsulated in the tcp stream
that ipsec's policies are mangling.
> --
> Matt Emmerton
--
Brian <[EMAIL PR
21 matches
Mail list logo
