From george at metaart.org Tue Nov 4 19:40:36 2003 From: george at metaart.org (George Woolley) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:40:36 -0800 Subject: [buug] Quiet? Message-ID: <200311041940.36887.george@metaart.org> It's awfully quiet around here. What's a good Open Sores pun? From wfhoney at pacbell.net Wed Nov 5 09:57:27 2003 From: wfhoney at pacbell.net (Bill Honeycutt) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:57:27 -0800 Subject: [buug] Quiet? In-Reply-To: <200311041940.36887.george@metaart.org> References: <200311041940.36887.george@metaart.org> Message-ID: <3FA93A07.4020006@pacbell.net> George Woolley wrote: > It's awfully quiet around here. > What's a good Open Sores pun? If Netware married Suse, what would the baby look like? From george at metaart.org Mon Nov 10 16:42:22 2003 From: george at metaart.org (George Woolley) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:42:22 -0800 Subject: [buug] Parking near LMI.net? Message-ID: <200311101642.22891.george@metaart.org> I and several people I know who don't know Berkeley real well are going to a Perl Mongers (user group) meeting in Berkeley very to LMI.net and the corner of Virginia & Martin Luther King. The meetings haven't been held there before. Any comments regarding the availability of parking would be appreciated. (Also comments about other things you think might be helpful.) Thanks. George P.S. The meeting is in the evening, starting at 7:30pm. From atporter at primate.net Mon Nov 10 16:50:06 2003 From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:50:06 -0800 Subject: [buug] Parking near LMI.net? In-Reply-To: <200311101642.22891.george@metaart.org> References: <200311101642.22891.george@metaart.org> Message-ID: <20031111005006.GG28090@primate.net> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 04:42:22PM -0800, George Woolley wrote: > I and several people I know who don't know Berkeley real well > are going to a Perl Mongers (user group) meeting in Berkeley very > to LMI.net and the corner of Virginia & Martin Luther King. > The meetings haven't been held there before. > > Any comments regarding the availability of parking would be appreciated. > (Also comments about other things you think might be helpful.) LMI is in a residential area, there are no public lots close by. Expect strong competition with locals for limited street parking. From dave at mikamyla.com Mon Nov 10 17:21:29 2003 From: dave at mikamyla.com (Dave Barry) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:21:29 -0800 Subject: [buug] Parking near LMI.net? In-Reply-To: <20031111005006.GG28090@primate.net> References: <200311101642.22891.george@metaart.org> <20031111005006.GG28090@primate.net> Message-ID: <20031111012129.GA16328@mikamyla.com> Quothe Aaron T Porter , on Mon, Nov 10, 2003: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 04:42:22PM -0800, George Woolley wrote: > > I and several people I know who don't know Berkeley real well > > are going to a Perl Mongers (user group) meeting in Berkeley very > > to LMI.net and the corner of Virginia & Martin Luther King. > > The meetings haven't been held there before. > > > > Any comments regarding the availability of parking would be appreciated. > > (Also comments about other things you think might be helpful.) > > LMI is in a residential area, there are no public lots close by. > Expect strong competition with locals for limited street parking. Better yet, take BART to North Berkeley and walk for 5 minutes. You get to walk through a beautiful park, and don't have to worry a bit about parking. -- Fight the Humorist! Tell the truth! There is only one true Dave Barry! From jammer at weak.org Tue Nov 11 12:36:37 2003 From: jammer at weak.org (Jon McClintock) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:36:37 -0800 Subject: [buug] [lauren@otivo.com: Looking for Red Hat Network users for paid focus group ($125)] Message-ID: <20031111203637.GC23506@weak.org> ----- Forwarded message from Lauren Whittemore ----- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:55:05 -0800 To: jammer at weak.org From: Lauren Whittemore Subject: Looking for Red Hat Network users for paid focus group ($125) Hi; We are looking for Red Hat Network users for a paid focus group. I don't know if you or any of your BUUG list members are interested in participating in market research, but we have a posting on craigslist with all the details. Here is the link to the posting: http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/etc/19105984.html The 1 1/2 hours focus groups are being held on Fri, Nov 14 or Tue, Nov 18 or Wed, Nov 19 or Thu, Nov 20 or Fri, Nov 21 in the Hayes Valley neighborhood (near Civic Center) at 451 Hayes Street in San Francisco. Participants will receive $125. If you think your list members might be interested, I would appreciate it if you could pass on this information. I did not think it would be appropriate to join the list simply in order to post this listing. Thanks, Lauren Whittemore OTIVO, INC. ----- End forwarded message ----- From youhan.mubaraki at californiadigital.com Tue Nov 11 16:48:05 2003 From: youhan.mubaraki at californiadigital.com (Youhan Mubaraki) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:48:05 -0800 Subject: [buug] Looking for GNU/ Linux Engineers Message-ID: <3FB18345.3000109@californiadigital.com> California Digital has acquired the VA Linux systems server division and we are looking for engineers with the following skills: GNU/Linux System/Network Administrator GNU/Linux HPC/Clustering Expert GNU/Linux Systems programmer GNU/Linux Kernel Hacker Most important is kernel hacker Next sys programmer Authorized to work in US. US Citizens preferred Must relocate to bay area if from outside. We are looking for the right people to work on a Large Linux super cluster. This will be the largest Linux supercomputer in the world, what an opportunity for the right people to get involved. Please send resume to youhan at californiadigital.com or call 925 699 4700. Thank you Youhan Mubaraki Director of Business Development -- Youhan Mubaraki Director of Business Development California Digital Corporation WWW.Californiadigital.com Direct Line : 510 687 7089 Cell : 925 699 4700 Fax : 510 651 8844 Toll Free 1 888 LINUX 4 U Ext 77089 Address 47071 Bayside Parkway VA Linux Building 1 Fremont, CA 94538 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From skip at ncseweb.org Thu Nov 13 17:16:15 2003 From: skip at ncseweb.org (Skip Evans) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:16:15 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? Message-ID: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> Hey all, We got a second install of Red Hat 9 here now, but we're having troubling connecting between them with ftp or ssh. We have set the hosts.allow and firewall settings to what we think are correct, but still no go. Anything else to look for? We have no trouble connecting to our BSD machines, but the Linux machines refuse connections from them as well. What is there beyond the firewalls and hosts.allow files? -- Skip Evans Network Project Director National Center for Science Education 420 40th St, Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609 510-601-7203 Ext. 308 510-601-7204 (fax) 800-290-6006 evans at ncseweb.org http://www.ncseweb.org NCSE now has a one way broadcast news list. Please note that this is NOT a discussion list. You cannot post messages for members to receive. We use this list to broadcast news about the creationism/evolution issue to interested parties. To sign up send: subscribe ncse your at email.address.here to: majordomo at ncseweb2.org To unsubscribe send: unsubscribe ncse your at email.address.here to: majordomo at ncseweb2.org From rick at linuxmafia.com Thu Nov 13 17:27:09 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:27:09 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> Message-ID: <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Skip Evans (skip at ncseweb.org): > Reply-To: skip at ncseweb.org I'm overriding your Reply-To header, because this mailing list isn't really a private consulting service, and the idea is supposed to be for listmembers (and people finding the Web archives) to benefit from the questions and answers. > Anything else to look for? Forward and reverse DNS. Skip, there are a lot of us who do this for a living. Given that you're setting Reply-To to direct any answers off-list, and thus aren't aiming to increase the community's knowledge base, maybe you should be hiring network consulting services. -- Cheers, * Contributing Editor, Linux Gazette * Rick Moen -*- See the Linux Gazette in its new home: -*- rick at linuxmafia.com From itpocketlearner at yahoo.co.jp Thu Nov 13 19:05:15 2003 From: itpocketlearner at yahoo.co.jp (Tomita Masahide) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:05:15 +0900 (JST) Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> Message-ID: <20031114030515.93167.qmail@web2306.mail.yahoo.co.jp> Hi Skip, Are you sure you turned on ftpd of the Linux machine after installation? Recently, Red Hat tends to make their distributions to be used as a desktop OS, thus those server siervices are often turned off by default. --- Skip Evans ????????? > Hey all, > > We got a second install of Red Hat 9 here now, but we're > having troubling connecting between them with ftp or ssh. > > We have set the hosts.allow and firewall settings to what we > think are correct, but still no go. > > Anything else to look for? We have no trouble connecting > to our BSD machines, but the Linux machines refuse > connections from them as well. > > What is there beyond the firewalls and hosts.allow files? > > -- > Skip Evans > Network Project Director > National Center for Science Education > 420 40th St, Suite 2 > Oakland, CA 94609 > 510-601-7203 Ext. 308 > 510-601-7204 (fax) > 800-290-6006 > evans at ncseweb.org > http://www.ncseweb.org > > NCSE now has a one way broadcast news list. > Please note that this is NOT a discussion > list. You cannot post messages for members > to receive. We use this list to broadcast > news about the creationism/evolution issue > to interested parties. > > To sign up send: > subscribe ncse your at email.address.here > to: majordomo at ncseweb2.org > > To unsubscribe send: > unsubscribe ncse your at email.address.here > to: majordomo at ncseweb2.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Buug mailing list > Buug at weak.org > http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug -- Masahide Tomita itpocketlearner at yahoo.co.jp __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! BB is Broadband by Yahoo! http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/ From nick at zork.net Thu Nov 13 19:40:10 2003 From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:40:10 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <20031114034010.GF24670@zork.net> begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > Quoting Skip Evans (skip at ncseweb.org): > > Reply-To: skip at ncseweb.org > > I'm overriding your Reply-To header, because this mailing list isn't > really a private consulting service, and the idea is supposed to be > for listmembers (and people finding the Web archives) to benefit > from the questions and answers. And that's why individual reply is separate from group reply. The whole point of the no-munging argument is so that skip can do precisely what he did without interfering with the path of list replies (or being interfered with thereby). -- "Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends." -- Lewis Mumford end From michael1cat at yahoo.com Fri Nov 14 01:31:13 2003 From: michael1cat at yahoo.com (Michael Paoli) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:31:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [buug] Re: Reply-To: Message-ID: <20031114093113.12065.qmail@web40806.mail.yahoo.com> Reply-To: header essentially designates a preferred e-mail address to reply to, i.e. it typically overrides From:, effectively designating a preferred e-mail address the originator wants the e-mail to go to. In typical usage with a mailing list, it generally has nothing to do with whether or not the originator wants replies to go to the list, themselves (via From: or Reply-To: address), or both (the only real exception being if they set the Reply-To: to the address for the list itself, in which case they would want replies sent to the list, rather than themselves - this, however, would tend to violate the Principle of Least Surprise and wouldn't be a recommended best practice, as a replying recipient, selecting "reply" rather than "reply-all", would have their response in such a case go to the Reply-To: and end up going to the list - when such a replying recipient probably intended such to go to the originator of the item to which they were replying, rather than the list). In typical usage, replying recipient selects "reply", and such would most "normally" or expectedly get sent to the originator of the item they are replying to (typically via Reply-To: or From: header in the original message, in that order of preference), or alternatively, if recipient selects "reply all", such typical goes to multiple applicable fields from the original message (e.g. Reply-To: or From: and also To: and Cc:). I often quite explicitly and intentionally use Reply-To: header. Typical examples: I'm sending from cheap or free or I'll probably get-rid-of-it-some-day-and-maybe-soon ISP or free web based e-mail, and I prefer to receive my e-mail at/via another address (such as a long-term or permanent forwarder - perhaps one I can't originate e-mail messages from with such a From: address - or can't easily do so (such as they offer forwarding services, but no sending services - and maybe I don't feel like munging or "forging" headers that much (or server(s) or firewalls or such on the way might also reject or drop such))). Someone sends me personal e-mail to my work e-mail address, and rather than just forwarding it to my personal e-mail address (as I most/quite typically do), I instead set the Reply-To: to my personal e-mail address and use the work e-mail address to send them a reply (hence the work address is in the From: - work sites may also block (firewall, etc.) other access to personal e-mail access from work site, making it difficult/infeasible/impossible to more directly originate personal e-mail from work). Same scenario as above, except swap the work and personal around the other way. (rare) I might send on someone's behalf or for them and want replies directed to them (I'd typically also Cc: them when sending such an e-mail). Note also that per the RFC(s) there's theoretically another way of dealing with such a scenario, but it's rarely used in practice (e.g. if I was administrative professional of the person and they dictated the memo to me, I could set them as From: and myself as Sender: but most mail client software doesn't conveniently lend itself to such use, and much client software wouldn't easily let recipient be able to see and/or distinguish and/or distinctly and separately choose when replying, between From: and Sender: addresses. In practice, Sender is used for much more autonomous (or semi-autonomous) Senders, e.g. mail list software). Note that with typical BUUG usage, what does or doesn't get the reply to go to the list has nothing to do with the presence (or lack thereof) of a Reply-To: header. It's the To: header which is generally buug at weak.org, and hence a "reply all" action by recipient(s) includes sending to buug at weak.org. references/excerpts: > From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:40:10 -0800 > Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? > In-Reply-To: <20031114012709.GX11857 at linuxmafia.com> > References: <3FB42CDF.3000503 at ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857 at linuxmafia.com> > Message-ID: <20031114034010.GF24670 at zork.net> > begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > > Quoting Skip Evans (skip at ncseweb.org): > > > Reply-To: skip at ncseweb.org > > > > I'm overriding your Reply-To header, because this mailing list isn't > > really a private consulting service, and the idea is supposed to be > > for listmembers (and people finding the Web archives) to benefit > > from the questions and answers. > And that's why individual reply is separate from group reply. > The whole point of the no-munging argument is so that skip can do > precisely what he did without interfering with the path of list > replies (or being interfered with thereby). Quoted from RFC # 822: " 4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail- boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine address. In the second case, an author may wish additional persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their own. Note: The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended to identify a path back to the orginator of the mes- sage. The "Reply-To" field is added by the message originator and is intended to direct replies. 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO For systems which automatically generate address lists for replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any problems in transport or delivery of the original messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the "From" field mailbox should be used. o The "Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used automatically, in a recipient's reply message. o If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. " __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 01:59:43 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:59:43 -0800 Subject: [buug] Re: Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20031114093113.12065.qmail@web40806.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031114093113.12065.qmail@web40806.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20031114095943.GA11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Michael Paoli (michael1cat at yahoo.com): > Reply-To: header essentially designates a preferred e-mail address to > reply to.... Michael -- I'm minutely familiar with the uses of that header. What I'm afraid I don't understand is the point of your post -- especially in the context of the preceding discussion. > nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) wrote: > > And that's why individual reply is separate from group reply. > > The whole point of the no-munging argument is so that skip can do > > precisely what he did without interfering with the path of list > > replies (or being interfered with thereby). > > Quoted from RFC # 822: Sadly outdated, and thus unable to properly speak to best practices on one-to-many media such as mailing lists. RFC 2822 (standards track) aims to update RFC 822 to current standards, and _is in general heeded_ as embodying best practices despite its still being, in theory, stuck in IETF's approval process. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html -- Cheers, * Contributing Editor, Linux Gazette * Rick Moen -*- See the Linux Gazette in its new home: -*- rick at linuxmafia.com From bayard at newsguy.com Thu Nov 13 20:51:46 2003 From: bayard at newsguy.com (Ian Zimmerman) Date: 13 Nov 2003 20:51:46 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <8765hnsgbh.fsf@newsguy.com> Rick> Skip, there are a lot of us who do this for a living. Given that Rick> you're setting Reply-To to direct any answers off-list, and thus Rick> aren't aiming to increase the community's knowledge base, maybe Rick> you should be hiring network consulting services. Hear, hear. Maybe the netizen currently known as Hereon should be forwarded a copy :-) -- "Rap music is our punishment for neglecting music education." An anonymous teacher From skip at ncseweb.org Fri Nov 14 10:00:45 2003 From: skip at ncseweb.org (Skip Evans) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:00:45 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <3FB5184D.6060707@ncseweb.org> > > >Skip, there are a lot of us who do this for a living. Given that you're >setting Reply-To to direct any answers off-list, and thus aren't aiming >to increase the community's knowledge base, maybe you should be hiring >network consulting services. > > > I didn't actually set the Reply-To to anything intentionally, just whatever my client defaulted to. Sorry for any violation of the list's etiquette. I didn't intend to use the list as a "private consulting service." -- Skip Evans Network Project Director National Center for Science Education 420 40th St, Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609 510-601-7203 Ext. 308 510-601-7204 (fax) 800-290-6006 evans at ncseweb.org http://www.ncseweb.org NCSE now has a one way broadcast news list. Please note that this is NOT a discussion list. You cannot post messages for members to receive. We use this list to broadcast news about the creationism/evolution issue to interested parties. To sign up send: subscribe ncse your at email.address.here to: majordomo at ncseweb2.org To unsubscribe send: unsubscribe ncse your at email.address.here to: majordomo at ncseweb2.org From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 11:00:37 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:37 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <3FB5184D.6060707@ncseweb.org> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> <3FB5184D.6060707@ncseweb.org> Message-ID: <20031114190037.GC11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Skip Evans (skip at ncseweb.org): > I didn't actually set the Reply-To to anything intentionally, just > whatever my client defaulted to. You have: > Reply-To: skip at ncseweb.org > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 Mozilla Mail/News doesn't default to that: You apparently set it when you established your personal profile -- and you still have it. You might want to fix it. -- Cheers, If C gives you enough rope to hang yourself, then C++ gives you enough Rick Moen to bind and gag your neighbourhood, rig the sails on a small ship, rick at linuxmafia.com and still have enough to hang yourself from the yardarm. From sneakums at zork.net Fri Nov 14 11:13:34 2003 From: sneakums at zork.net (Sean Neakums) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:13:34 +0000 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> (Rick Moen's message of "Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:27:09 -0800") References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <6u7k227ogx.fsf@zork.zork.net> Rick Moen writes: > Skip, there are a lot of us who do this for a living. Given that you're > setting Reply-To to direct any answers off-list, [...] Setting Reply-To does not have this effect. From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 11:23:12 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:23:12 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <6u7k227ogx.fsf@zork.zork.net> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> <6u7k227ogx.fsf@zork.zork.net> Message-ID: <20031114192312.GD11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Sean Neakums (sneakums at zork.net): > Rick Moen writes: > > > Skip, there are a lot of us who do this for a living. Given that you're > > setting Reply-To to direct any answers off-list, [...] > > Setting Reply-To does not have this effect. Well, not if subsequent correspondents _override_ a Reply-To pointing off-list, no. -- Cheers, You can't lick the system -- but you can certainly Rick Moen give it a damned good fondling.... rick at linuxmafia.com From nick at zork.net Fri Nov 14 12:38:06 2003 From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:38:06 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114192312.GD11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> <6u7k227ogx.fsf@zork.zork.net> <20031114192312.GD11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <20031114203805.GL24670@zork.net> begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > Quoting Sean Neakums (sneakums at zork.net): > > Rick Moen writes: > > > > > Skip, there are a lot of us who do this for a living. Given > > > that you're setting Reply-To to direct any answers off-list, > > > [...] > > > > Setting Reply-To does not have this effect. > > Well, not if subsequent correspondents _override_ a Reply-To > pointing off-list, no. You're overstating the issue. The Reply-To in Skip's message should have no effect on individual replies, group replies, OR list replies. There's nothing to override, since Reply-To is specifically for replacing the From: header. Any group reply will properly include all included To and Cc entries (including the list) as well as the From/Reply-To, and a list reply will make use of any detected "subscribe" commands or other list identification techniques used in your mailer setup. The only header I can see that would affect a list reply is Mail-Followup-To (roughly equivalent to the netnews Followup-To header, though less widely accepted), although my experiments with redirecting replies to read-only lists revealed that mutt (at least) does not allow Mail-Followup-To to ever *remove* the sending list from the distribution of a list reply. -- "Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends." -- Lewis Mumford end From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 12:57:13 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:57:13 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114203805.GL24670@zork.net> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> <6u7k227ogx.fsf@zork.zork.net> <20031114192312.GD11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114203805.GL24670@zork.net> Message-ID: <20031114205713.GE11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net): > You're overstating the issue. The Reply-To in Skip's message > should have no effect on individual replies, group replies, OR list > replies. Either I'm missing something important, or you're disregarding the way most existing MUAs deal with Reply-To. > Any group reply will properly include all included To and Cc entries > (including the list) as well as the From/Reply-To.... They _should_. Many don't. I understand what you're saying: It would be nice if MUAs would interpret Skip's Reply-To as "Please use this instead of my From: address in any replies." Unfortunately, that most often isn't what happens. > ...and a list reply will make use of any detected "subscribe" commands > or other list identification techniques used in your mailer setup. List reply is a concept supported by mutt and GNUS. While it would be terrific if it were supported more broadly, I don't think it's caught on much beyond those two. From nick at zork.net Fri Nov 14 12:59:54 2003 From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:59:54 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> Message-ID: <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> Here I am, performing a normal group reply to Skip's message, with no "overriding" necessary. -- "Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends." -- Lewis Mumford end From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 13:05:41 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:05:41 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> Message-ID: <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net): > Here I am, performing a normal group reply to Skip's message, with no > "overriding" necessary. Yes, but: > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From nick at zork.net Fri Nov 14 13:07:52 2003 From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:07:52 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > Yes, but: > > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Go on, tell me which mailers are so broken that a "Reply To All" doesn't work if the sender has a Reply-To. -- "Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends." -- Lewis Mumford end From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 13:16:33 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:16:33 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> Message-ID: <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net): > Go on, tell me which mailers are so broken that a "Reply To > All" doesn't work if the sender has a Reply-To. To re-gather that information with reasonable certainty would require me to install and test some sizeable fraction of the 120 MUAs available for Linux -- not counting legacy Win32 and MacOS mailers. I'm not up for doing that at the moment. I'm quite happy with mutt, and with Linux. -- Cheers, * Contributing Editor, Linux Gazette * Rick Moen -*- See the Linux Gazette in its new home: -*- rick at linuxmafia.com From nick at zork.net Fri Nov 14 13:22:23 2003 From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:22:23 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net): > > Go on, tell me which mailers are so broken that a "Reply To > > All" doesn't work if the sender has a Reply-To. > > To re-gather that information with reasonable certainty would > require me to install and test some sizeable fraction of the 120 > MUAs available for Linux -- not counting legacy Win32 and MacOS > mailers. I'm not up for doing that at the moment. I'm quite happy > with mutt, and with Linux. Can you give even anecdotal evidence? Just *one* that you remember doing this? Some actual fact to base your flame against Skip on? It's my memory that netscape mail (I tried it out for a while when I was at SuSE) would ask you in a wizard-style input mechanism for your address, and addresses you would like replies to be directed to. You'd get a reply-to automatically just by mechanically and truthfully answering the questions. I don't recall this ever causing any problems on mailing lists that didn't munge reply-to. I don't know where you're getting the idea that the mailers you don't use are THAT broken. And if they are, why yell at Skip? He's following the damned RFCs, so who cares if he tickles a bug in someone's broken MUA? Hell, half my headers do that *deliberately*, and some of my message body! -- "Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends." -- Lewis Mumford end From dave at mikamyla.com Fri Nov 14 13:28:17 2003 From: dave at mikamyla.com (Dave Barry) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:28:17 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> Message-ID: <20031114212817.GA25179@mikamyla.com> Quothe Nick Moffitt , on Fri, Nov 14, 2003: > I don't know where you're getting the idea that the mailers > you don't use are THAT broken. And if they are, why yell at Skip? > He's following the damned RFCs, so who cares if he tickles a bug in > someone's broken MUA? Hell, half my headers do that *deliberately*, > and some of my message body! Free Skip! -- Fight the Humorist! Tell the truth! There is only one true Dave Barry! From skip at ncseweb.org Fri Nov 14 13:43:10 2003 From: skip at ncseweb.org (Skip Evans) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:43:10 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114212817.GA25179@mikamyla.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> <20031114212817.GA25179@mikamyla.com> Message-ID: <3FB54C6E.2080401@ncseweb.org> > > >Free Skip! > > > Along similar lines (and this is a true story), I was taking my bicycle on BART one afternoon. I have a FreeBSD sticker on it and a woman looked at it with her head cocked and then asked me, "Who's BSD?" (This message sent with apologies to any and all who are annoyed by however I have my Reply-To and whatnots set. If you have suggestions for how to set them so as not to cause raoucous exchanges on the list, I am more than open to hear them.... unless they come from Rick... because he apparently does this for a living.) -- Skip Evans Network Project Director National Center for Science Education 420 40th St, Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609 510-601-7203 Ext. 308 510-601-7204 (fax) 800-290-6006 evans at ncseweb.org http://www.ncseweb.org NCSE now has a one way broadcast news list. Please note that this is NOT a discussion list. You cannot post messages for members to receive. We use this list to broadcast news about the creationism/evolution issue to interested parties. To sign up send: subscribe ncse your at email.address.here to: majordomo at ncseweb2.org To unsubscribe send: unsubscribe ncse your at email.address.here to: majordomo at ncseweb2.org From jammer at weak.org Fri Nov 14 13:48:20 2003 From: jammer at weak.org (Jon McClintock) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:48:20 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114205713.GE11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> <6u7k227ogx.fsf@zork.zork.net> <20031114192312.GD11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114203805.GL24670@zork.net> <20031114205713.GE11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <20031114214820.GA28264@weak.org> On or about the past couple of days, people said: > [Insert mindless drivel here...] Ok. Really. Enough. Y'all are just bitching at eachother about minutae completely unrelated to the original poster's question. If I wanted to see people blathering on about points unrelated to the topic at hand, I'd watch C-SPAN. If I wanted to relive old pointless arguments, I'd watch C-SPAN2. Skip posted a question about a lack of SSH connectivity between two hosts. Two dozen unrelated responses resulted. Your signal-to-noise ratio is rather pathetic. So, Skip, back to your problem. Are both hosts on the same physical network? Can they both get to the Internet? Can the hosts ping eachother? Does anything show up in the ssh or kernel logs when you attempt to SSH between the hosts? These are are good starting points. -Jon From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 13:56:59 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:56:59 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> Message-ID: <20031114215659.GK11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net): > Just *one* that you remember doing this? Pine, I'm pretty sure. (I never used it much, having gone straight from elm to mutt.) > Some actual fact to base your flame against Skip on? Well, Mr. Sensitive, I don't recall attacking Skip personally. I just suggested that he not use Reply-To on technical-community mailing lists in a fashion that tends to redirect threads to private mail. > I don't know where you're getting the idea that the mailers > you don't use are THAT broken. s/don't use/don't use any more/ > And if they are, why yell at Skip? Checking my sent mail, I fail to notice any of the ASCII analogues of yelling -- or even any expression of annoyance. I answered his technical question, and then suggested that in the future he conduct ordinary list replies, and not set Reply-To. > He's following the damned RFCs, so who cares if he tickles a bug in > someone's broken MUA? Well, I do. The particular setting Skip used, although certainly something he set up inadvertantly, has no legitimate purpose: In case you didn't notice, his Reply-To: address was set the same as his From: one. Granting the assumption that, _if_ MUAs tended to treat Reply-To correctly, he could have usefully employed it to say "Please use this instead of my From: address in any replies", setting it to the _same_ as the From: address serves only to trip up broken mailers and redirect threads to offlist private mail. -- Cheers, Rick Moen Emacs is a decent operating system, rick at linuxmafia.com but it still lacks a good text editor. From nick at zork.net Fri Nov 14 14:03:10 2003 From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:03:10 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114215659.GK11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> <20031114215659.GK11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <20031114220309.GP24670@zork.net> begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net): > > Just *one* that you remember doing this? > > Pine, I'm pretty sure. (I never used it much, having gone straight > from elm to mutt.) Nope. It specifically prompts you if you want to use the reply-to. > > Some actual fact to base your flame against Skip on? > > Well, Mr. Sensitive, I don't recall attacking Skip personally. I > just suggested that he not use Reply-To on technical-community > mailing lists in a fashion that tends to redirect threads to private > mail. You all but accused him of trying to use the list as a private consulting service. > > And if they are, why yell at Skip? > > Checking my sent mail, I fail to notice any of the ASCII analogues > of yelling -- or even any expression of annoyance. I answered his > technical question, and then suggested that in the future he conduct > ordinary list replies, and not set Reply-To. Skip took offense, and nobody on this list seemed to think it at all odd that he should. I wonder why. > > He's following the damned RFCs, so who cares if he tickles a bug > > in someone's broken MUA? > > Well, I do. The particular setting Skip used, although certainly > something he set up inadvertantly, has no legitimate purpose: In > case you didn't notice, his Reply-To: address was set the same as > his From: one. > > Granting the assumption that, _if_ MUAs tended to treat Reply-To > correctly, he could have usefully employed it to say "Please use > this instead of my From: address in any replies", setting it to the > _same_ as the From: address serves only to trip up broken mailers > and redirect threads to offlist private mail. Thus, harmless! Not worth even MENTIONING! This thread has pushed the "ha ha buug" value to 11, I swear. -- "Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends." -- Lewis Mumford end From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 14:15:00 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:15:00 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <3FB54C6E.2080401@ncseweb.org> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> <20031114212817.GA25179@mikamyla.com> <3FB54C6E.2080401@ncseweb.org> Message-ID: <20031114221500.GL11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Skip Evans (skip at ncseweb.org): > Along similar lines (and this is a true story), I was taking my > bicycle on BART one afternoon. I have a FreeBSD sticker on it and a > woman looked at it with her head cocked and then asked me, "Who's > BSD?" Something she did too much of in the 60s? ;-> > (This message sent with apologies to any and all who are annoyed by > however I have my Reply-To and whatnots set. If you have suggestions > for how to set them so as not to cause raoucous exchanges on the list, > I am more than open to hear them.... unless they come from Rick... > because he apparently does this for a living.) You're welcome to pretend this came from someone you're not having a public snit at. I don't mind. In Mozilla Mail/News, open Mail & Newsgroups Account Settings on the Edit menu. On the field "Reply-to Address", you can specify a Reply-To address differing from your e-mail address, when such is desirable. Since it appears that you have the same address in both fields, you might want to remove that one, then hit "OK" to save. -- Cheers, Rick Moen FORTH heart if honk then. rick at linuxmafia.com From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 14:36:47 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:36:47 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114220309.GP24670@zork.net> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> <20031114215659.GK11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114220309.GP24670@zork.net> Message-ID: <20031114223647.GM11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net): > Nope. It specifically prompts you if you want to use the > reply-to. I'm glad to hear that, but think it unnecessary for me to go test a bunch of MUAs to support my recollection of inappropriate Reply-To handling among common mailers. > You all but accused him of trying to use the list as a private > consulting service. Since you mention it, Skip _does_ tend to use the list as a private consulting service. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with trying. > Skip took offense, and nobody on this list seemed to think it > at all odd that he should. I wonder why. Wait, you took a poll, or was this a Hundredth Monkey sort of thing? From rick at linuxmafia.com Fri Nov 14 14:39:07 2003 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:39:07 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114214820.GA28264@weak.org> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114012709.GX11857@linuxmafia.com> <6u7k227ogx.fsf@zork.zork.net> <20031114192312.GD11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114203805.GL24670@zork.net> <20031114205713.GE11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114214820.GA28264@weak.org> Message-ID: <20031114223907.GN11857@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Jon McClintock (jammer at weak.org): > Skip posted a question about a lack of SSH connectivity between two > hosts. Two dozen unrelated responses resulted. To repeat what I said the first time: Forward and reverse DNS. -- Cheers, find / -user your -name base -print | xargs chown us:us Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com From michael1cat at yahoo.com Fri Nov 14 14:59:04 2003 From: michael1cat at yahoo.com (Michael Paoli) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:59:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [buug] Quiet?, Reply-To:, BUUG list archiver, etc. Message-ID: <20031114225904.15022.qmail@web40806.mail.yahoo.com> > From: george at metaart.org (George Woolley) > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:40:36 -0800 > Subject: [buug] Quiet? > Message-ID: <200311041940.36887.george at metaart.org> > It's awfully quiet around here. Uhm, I think that's been "fixed" ... perhaps overly. I think the RFCs and the behavior of the vast majority of MUAs adequately cover how Reply-To: should be and generally is dealt with. It's also interesting to note how the list archiver munges headers. It drops lots of headers (which I'd expect, and is probably a *good thing*) ... but interestingly, if Reply-To: is present, it munges the From: (and From) headers, substituting the Reply-To: e-mail address in there instead (for example, compare the headers of this e-mail message, or ones I sent earlier, to how they appear in the archive: http://www.weak.org/pipermail/buug/2003-November.txt ). Seems the archiver also takes the view that Reply-To: supersedes From: - though it implements it in a slightly surprising way. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree From nick at zork.net Fri Nov 14 16:25:55 2003 From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:25:55 -0800 Subject: [buug] connecting between linux machines? In-Reply-To: <20031114223647.GM11857@linuxmafia.com> References: <3FB42CDF.3000503@ncseweb.org> <20031114205954.GM24670@zork.net> <20031114210541.GG11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114210752.GN24670@zork.net> <20031114211633.GJ11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114212222.GO24670@zork.net> <20031114215659.GK11857@linuxmafia.com> <20031114220309.GP24670@zork.net> <20031114223647.GM11857@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <20031115002554.GQ24670@zork.net> begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > I'm glad to hear that, but think it unnecessary for me to go test a > bunch of MUAs to support my recollection of inappropriate Reply-To > handling among common mailers. [...] > > Skip took offense, and nobody on this list seemed to think it at > > all odd that he should. I wonder why. > > Wait, you took a poll, or was this a Hundredth Monkey sort of thing? It was more scientific than your claims of mailer brokenness. -- "Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends." -- Lewis Mumford end From john at jjdev.com Mon Nov 17 08:27:00 2003 From: john at jjdev.com (johnd) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:27:00 -0800 Subject: [buug] routing Message-ID: <20031117162700.GA2698@stang.jjdev.com> I have box a that needs to get to box c through box b so box a sets a static route to box c using box b as as gateway the problem box a needs to get to port 443 on box c but can only get to box b (the gateway) on 7001 is there a way I can set this up? I don't know if this matters but: box a is a appserver running Solaris, box b is a linux box, and box c is a third party web server box a is behind two firewalls, and box b is in the 'DMZ' my fall back plan is to use squid and run it on port 7001... -- Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --Henry Spencer (Usenet signature, November 1987) From atporter at primate.net Mon Nov 17 11:33:44 2003 From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:44 -0800 Subject: [buug] routing In-Reply-To: <20031117162700.GA2698@stang.jjdev.com> References: <20031117162700.GA2698@stang.jjdev.com> Message-ID: <20031117193344.GB28278@primate.net> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:27:00AM -0800, johnd wrote: > box a needs to get to port 443 on box c but can only get to > box b (the gateway) on 7001 > > is there a way I can set this up? I'd checkout iptables DNAT (Destination NAT) or possibly xinetd. From togo at of.net Mon Nov 17 15:48:36 2003 From: togo at of.net (Tony Godshall) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:48:36 -0800 Subject: [buug] routing In-Reply-To: <20031117193344.GB28278@primate.net> References: <20031117162700.GA2698@stang.jjdev.com> <20031117193344.GB28278@primate.net> Message-ID: <20031117234836.GA11370@of.net> According to Aaron T Porter, > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:27:00AM -0800, johnd wrote: > > box a needs to get to port 443 on box c but can only get to > > box b (the gateway) on 7001 > > > > is there a way I can set this up? > > I'd checkout iptables DNAT (Destination NAT) or possibly xinetd. Iptables will work if you have root access on boxb. I don't know about xinetd. Here's a way that works without any kernel support or root access on boxb or boxc (box a obviously does because you are redirecting a priviledged port). If you need end-to-end encryption: FWDPORT=56789 #anything unused on boxb boxa$ ssh -t -g -L 443:localhost:$FWDPORT -l usernameb boxb \ ssh -t -g -L $FWDPORT:localhost:7001 -l usernamec boxc If you don't need end-to-end encryption: boxa$ ssh -L 443:boxc:7001 -l usernameb boxb ### From michael1cat at yahoo.com Mon Nov 17 16:51:43 2003 From: michael1cat at yahoo.com (Michael Paoli) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:51:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [buug] routing Message-ID: <20031118005143.81253.qmail@web40812.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, there's probably (almost certainly) a way to do it. Unfortunately I find at least a slight bit of ambiguity regarding the description, so hopefully I'm making correct guesses/assumptions regarding the scenario described. First the easy part: a wants to "talk" to c, and must do so via b The answer to that part, is as you mention, simple routing (route on a to c is specified via b) - or at least it may be that simple in most scenarios. Likewise, if traffic from c to a must go via b, the appropriate routing would be set up on c (or somewhere between c and before b, to route via b). Note also that possibility of asymmetric routing may or may not have to be handled specially on a and/or c (for example, on LINUX, it's relatively trivial (simple flags in /proc filesystem) to filter whether or not traffic inbound on external interfaces is accepted or dropped(/rejected?) if the interface does not correspond to the interface that would be used to route packets to the source IP of the incoming packet). Then we get a bit beyond just routing (and filtering): I'm not sure I'm interpreting your description correctly, but presuming if a, in order to talk to c, sends packets with destination of c's IP and port 7100 (which are routed via b), then b can handle the packet mangling to change those to destination port 443, and pass those on to/towards c. Likewise if return IP is also via b, it could also do the relevant mangling for the return traffic. Since you mention b is a LINUX system, b could handle that [iptables(8) for LINUX >=2.4.x or ipchains(8) for LINUX 2.2.x, etc.]. Anyway, something like that would handle the basic port mangling. However, since we're talking web server (presumably https), routing and port mangling alone may not be quite sufficient, as there is data payload (most notably HTTP/HTTPS headers) which may be problematic if they're not also suitably translated. If that data needs to also be suitably dealt with, the simplest solution would probably be to use a suitable HTTP/HTTPS proxy on b. On the other hand, if c doesn't care about precisely correct HTTP/HTTPS headers (e.g. Referer, Host), and a doesn't care about HTTP/HTTPS links in content returned (e.g. referring/defaulting to port 443 on c when a reached c via port 7100), then using simple port mangling may be the more simple implementation - but it may also violate the Principle of Least Surprise (especially if content on c changes - adding links to pages that didn't earlier contain links, and then a wants to follow those links). Anyway, that's my take/guestimate/analysis of the scenario presented - at least at a quick first glance. route can handle the basic routing ipchains(/iptables) can cover the port mangling suitable proxy will likely also cover more application level data Also, the LINUX iproute package can handle much more complex routing (e.g. if traffic from a with destination IP of c needed to handle different routes based on destination port). > From: johnd > To: buug at weak.org > Message-ID: <20031117162700.GA2698 at stang.jjdev.com> > Subject: [buug] routing > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:27:00 -0800 > I have box a that needs to get to box c through box b > so box a sets a static route to box c using box b as as gateway > the problem > box a needs to get to port 443 on box c but can only get to > box b (the gateway) on 7001 > is there a way I can set this up? > I don't know if this matters but: > box a is a appserver running Solaris, box b is a linux box, and box c > is a third party web server > box a is behind two firewalls, and box b is in the 'DMZ' > my fall back plan is to use squid and run it on port 7001... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree From jzitt at josephzitt.com Wed Nov 19 22:22:22 2003 From: jzitt at josephzitt.com (Joseph Zitt) Date: 19 Nov 2003 22:22:22 -0800 Subject: [buug] Netgear USB Wireless Message-ID: <1069309341.22811.45.camel@aleph.josephzitt.com> I'm trying to get my Red Hat 9 system communicating with the local LAN over a netgear MA101B Wireless USB device with WEP turned on. I had had it working without the WEP, but couldn't get it to work with it on, so went back to dialup for a while. Now that I've tried it again, I find that something (I don't know what) is now causing my system to not even recognize the device. When I plug it in, I get: Nov 19 22:08:23 aleph kernel: usb.c: USB device 6 (vend/prod 0x864/0x4102) is not claimed by any active driver. Nov 19 22:08:26 aleph /etc/hotplug/usb.agent: ... no modules for USB product 864/4102/100 I probably have to set something in /etc/somethingorother.conf again, but have lost track of what. Googling for answers has gotten confusing results. Any clues as to what I should do and where I should look?