From john at jjdev.com  Wed Sep  1 17:20:01 2004
From: john at jjdev.com (johnd)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:20:01 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
Message-ID: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>

I know I can't use name based virt hosts on apache and ssl...


I have two domain names that both point to one ip...they are the same
app though.


just checking to make sure I'm not over complicating things in my head


For each app to be ssl I obviously need two IPs right?


-- 
John de la Garza
Computer Support
(714) 315-5499
http://jjdev.com/


From jan at caustic.org  Wed Sep  1 17:27:47 2004
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
Message-ID: <20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, johnd wrote:

> For each app to be ssl I obviously need two IPs right?

no. you need two certificates, one for each ssl virtual host (i think).



 --- f.johan.beisser ---
     Thanks bash.org!
	<kritical> matts: bikes go faster than cars...a bike at 60 mph
	           is a lot faster than a car at 60 mph
	<kritical> a bike at 60 mph will blow by a car at 60 mph


From atporter at primate.net  Wed Sep  1 17:34:23 2004
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:34:23 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 05:27:47PM -0700, f.johan.beisser wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, johnd wrote:
> 
> > For each app to be ssl I obviously need two IPs right?
> 
> no. you need two certificates, one for each ssl virtual host (i think).

	The SSL handshake happens before HTTP, so you must pick a cert per
IP. I think that if you get/generate a "Wildcard" SSL Cert you can do
vhosts within the same domain.


From robert at roberthelmer.com  Wed Sep  1 17:34:31 2004
From: robert at roberthelmer.com (Rob Helmer)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:34:31 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
Message-ID: <41366A97.2000805@roberthelmer.com>

Hi John,

The SSL negotiation happens before any HTTP headers are passed, which is 
why you do need one IP per domain. Named-based virtual hosting works by 
looking at the "Host:" HTTP header, so you're pretty much stuck with 
whatever the domain the certificate has on it, and this needs to match 
what the user typed into their web browser. By the time the "Host:" 
header is encountered by Apache, SSL negotiation has already been decided.

This also means that you need a seperate SSL certificate for each domain.


--
Rob

johnd wrote:
> I know I can't use name based virt hosts on apache and ssl...
> 
> 
> I have two domain names that both point to one ip...they are the same
> app though.
> 
> 
> just checking to make sure I'm not over complicating things in my head
> 
> 
> For each app to be ssl I obviously need two IPs right?
> 
> 



From wfhoney at pacbell.net  Wed Sep  1 17:39:13 2004
From: wfhoney at pacbell.net (Bill Honeycutt)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:39:13 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <41366BB1.6070902@pacbell.net>

You can configure "which" certificate is used with a virtual host in 
httpd.conf.  One certificate would be needed for each virtual host, as I 
understand it.

I don't think you can create the cert based on IP and get away with it 
without the browser throwing up a warning about a bad certificate.


f.johan.beisser wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, johnd wrote:
> 
> 
>>For each app to be ssl I obviously need two IPs right?
> 
> 
> no. you need two certificates, one for each ssl virtual host (i think).
> 
> 
> 
>  --- f.johan.beisser ---
>      Thanks bash.org!
> 	<kritical> matts: bikes go faster than cars...a bike at 60 mph
> 	           is a lot faster than a car at 60 mph
> 	<kritical> a bike at 60 mph will blow by a car at 60 mph
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
> 


From wfhoney at pacbell.net  Wed Sep  1 17:43:17 2004
From: wfhoney at pacbell.net (Bill Honeycutt)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:43:17 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
	<20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
Message-ID: <41366CA5.6040508@pacbell.net>

How would the Wildcard work?  Something like

   *.mydomain

...when you generate the certificate?


Aaron T Porter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 05:27:47PM -0700, f.johan.beisser wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, johnd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For each app to be ssl I obviously need two IPs right?
>>
>>no. you need two certificates, one for each ssl virtual host (i think).
> 
> 
> 	The SSL handshake happens before HTTP, so you must pick a cert per
> IP. I think that if you get/generate a "Wildcard" SSL Cert you can do
> vhosts within the same domain.
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
> 


From robert at roberthelmer.com  Wed Sep  1 18:30:52 2004
From: robert at roberthelmer.com (Rob Helmer)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:30:52 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409011749520.27337-100000@digitalspace.frogspace.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409011749520.27337-100000@digitalspace.frogspace.net>
Message-ID: <413677CC.8000605@roberthelmer.com>

Jeff Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Rob Helmer wrote:
>>The SSL negotiation happens before any HTTP headers are passed, which is 
>>why you do need one IP per domain. Named-based virtual hosting works by 
>>looking at the "Host:" HTTP header, so you're pretty much stuck with 
>>whatever the domain the certificate has on it, and this needs to match 
>>what the user typed into their web browser. By the time the "Host:" 
>>header is encountered by Apache, SSL negotiation has already been decided.
>>
>>This also means that you need a seperate SSL certificate for each domain.
>>
> 
> 
> SSL can work with name based virt hosts if each one uses a different
> port. I remember seeing this come up somewhere when I wasn't looking for
> it, so I didn't commit it to memory. 
> 
> IIRC, Each IP:port combination can use a different certificate, but I
> don't remember if they can be run from the same apache or if you need an
> apache instance for each set of ports.

True. One Apache instance can bind to multiple ports and send the 
traffic to different name or IP based vhosts.

However if each port represents a site being served on a different 
domain name, you will still need two certificates.. this could be a way 
to save on IP addresses, if you don't have any to spare. I've used the 
same certificate to serve both HTTPS (:443) and IMAPS (:993), and I know 
that when requesting a certificate you don't need to specify the ports 
you intend to use. I don't know if any user agents care if you're using 
a non-standard port for HTTPS though.

If it's for a public site and I had to do the above, I'd be concerned 
about users neglecting to enter the port as part of the URL. I'd 
probably set up a name-based non-SSL vhost for each domain, and 
advertise that as the website address. This non-SSL vhost would then 
redirect to the proper domain:port at the proper time. This seems to be 
how most public websites work anyway, because most browsers substitute 
"http://" for the user, and the general public doesn't neccessarily 
notice the "https://".


--
Rob


From jan at caustic.org  Wed Sep  1 18:33:11 2004
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] odd DHCPd issue.
Message-ID: <20040901182815.P64612@pogo.caustic.org>


I'm working with a small Mom & Pop 802.11b based wireless ISP. They're
tiny, community based, and pretty cool.

So, we're working on converting to a different DHCP server (off of a
linksys hardware one, and on to the ISC dhcpd, version 3), but there's a
couple clients that time out now which didn't before.

wierd.

they're dumping traffic on the default broadcast address range
(169.254.0.0/16) since the timeout with the linksys happened. they don't,
for some reason, respond to the new dhcp server.

thoughts?

 --- f.johan.beisser ---
     Thanks bash.org!
	<kritical> matts: bikes go faster than cars...a bike at 60 mph
	           is a lot faster than a car at 60 mph
	<kritical> a bike at 60 mph will blow by a car at 60 mph


From john at jjdev.com  Wed Sep  1 19:55:35 2004
From: john at jjdev.com (John de la Garza)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:55:35 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
	<20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
Message-ID: <8FF1621A-FC8B-11D8-8EA9-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>

That is what I thought...they are two domain names.   I told managment 
that SSL and name based vhosts don't work together and we need two IP's

I pretty much new this, but wanted to double check.


On Sep 1, 2004, at 5:34 PM, Aaron T Porter wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 05:27:47PM -0700, f.johan.beisser wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, johnd wrote:
>>
>>> For each app to be ssl I obviously need two IPs right?
>>
>> no. you need two certificates, one for each ssl virtual host (i 
>> think).
>
> 	The SSL handshake happens before HTTP, so you must pick a cert per
> IP. I think that if you get/generate a "Wildcard" SSL Cert you can do
> vhosts within the same domain.
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug



From mp at rawbw.com  Wed Sep  1 22:53:24 2004
From: mp at rawbw.com (Michael Paoli)
Date: Wed,  1 Sep 2004 22:53:24 -0700
Subject: [buug] hardware load balancing vs software
In-Reply-To: <20040901005140.GA16080@stang.jjdev.com>
References: <20040828052102.18852.qmail@web80605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<458B776C-F8FF-11D8-8C81-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<41351A6F.9040200@brc2.com>
	<20040901005140.GA16080@stang.jjdev.com>
Message-ID: <1094104404.4136b5545da8c@webmail.rawbw.com>

Well, actually, BIND (generally) hands out all the IPs each time, but 
round-robins the order each time it hands out the IPs.

Generally speaking if the client doesn't get a response from the first of
multiple IPs, it eventually times out and goes on to subsequent IPs, until
it gets one that responds, or exhausts trying the various IPs.

Note however if the server does "respond" - such as with connection
refused (server being brought up or down, or server up but service down),
the client doesn't bother trying other IPs.

So, in short, BIND DNS round-robin can do some crude "load balancing"
of sorts, and it may be adequate for some scenarios, but in many situations,
at least by itself, it may not be sufficient.

Quoting johnd <john at jjdev.com>:

> our system (hardware and software) knows not to send traffic to boxes
> that our down

> if I did this and a server went down, bind would still give the ip
> out and teh client would get a error

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:40:15PM -0500, Neal Samarakkody wrote:
> > John de la Garza wrote:
> > >I'm not asking if we should use tomcat or apache

> > >Im asking if we should use a hardware loadbalancer or apache to load 
> > >balance

> > >apache will be used regardless

> > the easiest way to do load balancing between webservers is to have dns 
> > do the work.  having the same name like www point to different ip's will 
> > cause dns to cycle through the list of ip's for a certain name as 
> > requests arrive.  actually, this is the manner in which bind behaves.  i 
> > am assuming most other dns daemons behave similarly.

> > so you do not need a hardware load balancer or apache to do load
> balancing.




From brian at dessent.net  Thu Sep  2 06:04:37 2004
From: brian at dessent.net (Brian Dessent)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:04:37 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
	<20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
	<8FF1621A-FC8B-11D8-8EA9-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
Message-ID: <41371A65.5C061498@dessent.net>

John de la Garza wrote:
> 
> That is what I thought...they are two domain names.   I told managment
> that SSL and name based vhosts don't work together and we need two IP's

You can use seperate ports on the same IP or seperate IPs with the same
port.  You can't do them both on the same IP and port though, as you've
noted.

Brian


From john at jjdev.com  Thu Sep  2 07:15:26 2004
From: john at jjdev.com (John de la Garza)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:15:26 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <41371A65.5C061498@dessent.net>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
	<20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
	<8FF1621A-FC8B-11D8-8EA9-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<41371A65.5C061498@dessent.net>
Message-ID: <893B2DF7-FCEA-11D8-8793-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>

they have to be port 80 and 443...that is pretty much a given for a 
commerical web site

http on 80
https on 443

I pretty much got what I was looking for

I just wanted a confirmation of what I knew, before I tell management 
they must do it different


On Sep 2, 2004, at 6:04 AM, Brian Dessent wrote:

> John de la Garza wrote:
>>
>> That is what I thought...they are two domain names.   I told managment
>> that SSL and name based vhosts don't work together and we need two 
>> IP's
>
> You can use seperate ports on the same IP or seperate IPs with the same
> port.  You can't do them both on the same IP and port though, as you've
> noted.
>
> Brian



From brian at dessent.net  Thu Sep  2 20:41:09 2004
From: brian at dessent.net (Brian Dessent)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:41:09 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
	<20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
	<8FF1621A-FC8B-11D8-8EA9-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<41371A65.5C061498@dessent.net>
	<893B2DF7-FCEA-11D8-8793-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
Message-ID: <4137E7D5.A858FB28@dessent.net>

John de la Garza wrote:
> 
> they have to be port 80 and 443...that is pretty much a given for a
> commerical web site
> 
> http on 80
> https on 443

There's no technical reason you can't do http and https on any port you
want, it's hardly a requirement.  However, it does ease compatibility
and is most likely to be able to travel through firewalls.  So I think
what you meant to say is that "management has the requirement that..."
and not that it is a hard rule defined anywhere.

Brian


From john at jjdev.com  Thu Sep  2 20:48:38 2004
From: john at jjdev.com (John de la Garza)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:48:38 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <4137E7D5.A858FB28@dessent.net>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
	<20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
	<8FF1621A-FC8B-11D8-8EA9-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<41371A65.5C061498@dessent.net>
	<893B2DF7-FCEA-11D8-8793-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<4137E7D5.A858FB28@dessent.net>
Message-ID: <23823644-FD5C-11D8-858D-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>

actually they are know as well known ports for those services

I don't know what you experience is with this, so forgive me if I over 
simplify.

When you put http in a browser it defaults to port 80

https goes to 443

if you run a website and want the user to put the domain name alone as 
the url
you must run your http external listening things on port 80
and https on 443

I didn't mean to say management requires it...

Everyone expects it it is default behavior.  I have not decided this.


On Sep 2, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Brian Dessent wrote:

> John de la Garza wrote:
>>
>> they have to be port 80 and 443...that is pretty much a given for a
>> commerical web site
>>
>> http on 80
>> https on 443
>
> There's no technical reason you can't do http and https on any port you
> want, it's hardly a requirement.  However, it does ease compatibility
> and is most likely to be able to travel through firewalls.  So I think
> what you meant to say is that "management has the requirement that..."
> and not that it is a hard rule defined anywhere.
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug



From brian at dessent.net  Fri Sep  3 02:20:39 2004
From: brian at dessent.net (Brian Dessent)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:20:39 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
	<20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
	<8FF1621A-FC8B-11D8-8EA9-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<41371A65.5C061498@dessent.net>
	<893B2DF7-FCEA-11D8-8793-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<4137E7D5.A858FB28@dessent.net>
	<23823644-FD5C-11D8-858D-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
Message-ID: <41383767.5D432467@dessent.net>

John de la Garza wrote:
> 
> actually they are know as well known ports for those services
> 
> I don't know what you experience is with this, so forgive me if I over
> simplify.

Oh, condescending mode. Goodie.

You see there are these things called URLs which Uniformly Locate
Resouces.  One of the fields they contain is the port on the server. 
Inside web pages we have tags called anchors which create links using
URLs.  So you could have links on your main example.com page as follows:

<a href="http://example.com:1080/main_page">Click here for my very
important site</a>

or:

<a href="https://example.com:1234/secure_site">Click here to enter my
secure area!</a>

The port is usually selected from the list of well-known ports out of
custom but there is no requirement for this whatsoever.

> When you put http in a browser it defaults to port 80
> 
> https goes to 443
> 
> if you run a website and want the user to put the domain name alone as
> the url
> you must run your http external listening things on port 80
> and https on 443

Yes, that is true of your initial URL.  However, there's nothing that
says you cannot have an arbitrarily complex link on your main pages for
the "click here to add to shopping cart" or "click here to check-out
securely."  Banks and check-out scripts do this all the time, and users
are perfectly used to it.  Go do some online banking and come back and
let me know if /anything/ but the initial home site url is simple and
easy to comprehend by a human.

> I didn't mean to say management requires it...
> 
> Everyone expects it it is default behavior.  I have not decided this.

You have also not read RFC1738 recently, apparently.

Brian


From john at jjdev.com  Fri Sep  3 09:42:40 2004
From: john at jjdev.com (John de la Garza)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:42:40 -0700
Subject: [buug] two urls one ip...with ssl
In-Reply-To: <41383767.5D432467@dessent.net>
References: <20040902002001.GA20140@stang.jjdev.com>
	<20040901172652.Q64612@pogo.caustic.org>
	<20040902003423.GV801@primate.net>
	<8FF1621A-FC8B-11D8-8EA9-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<41371A65.5C061498@dessent.net>
	<893B2DF7-FCEA-11D8-8793-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<4137E7D5.A858FB28@dessent.net>
	<23823644-FD5C-11D8-858D-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>
	<41383767.5D432467@dessent.net>
Message-ID: <453CAE33-FDC8-11D8-858D-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>


On Sep 3, 2004, at 2:20 AM, Brian Dessent wrote:

> John de la Garza wrote:
>>
>> actually they are know as well known ports for those services
>>
>> I don't know what you experience is with this, so forgive me if I over
>> simplify.
>
> Oh, condescending mode. Goodie.
>
> You see there are these things called URLs which Uniformly Locate
> Resouces.  One of the fields they contain is the port on the server.
> Inside web pages we have tags called anchors which create links using
> URLs.  So you could have links on your main example.com page as 
> follows:
>
> <a href="http://example.com:1080/main_page">Click here for my very
> important site</a>
>
> or:
>
> <a href="https://example.com:1234/secure_site">Click here to enter my
> secure area!</a>
>
> The port is usually selected from the list of well-known ports out of
> custom but there is no requirement for this whatsoever.
>
>> When you put http in a browser it defaults to port 80
>>
>> https goes to 443
>>
>> if you run a website and want the user to put the domain name alone as
>> the url
>> you must run your http external listening things on port 80
>> and https on 443
>
> Yes, that is true of your initial URL.  However, there's nothing that
> says you cannot have an arbitrarily complex link on your main pages for
> the "click here to add to shopping cart" or "click here to check-out
> securely."  Banks and check-out scripts do this all the time, and users
> are perfectly used to it.  Go do some online banking and come back and
> let me know if /anything/ but the initial home site url is simple and
> easy to comprehend by a human.
>
>> I didn't mean to say management requires it...
>>
>> Everyone expects it it is default behavior.  I have not decided this.
>
> You have also not read RFC1738 recently, apparently.
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug



From jcdouville at sbcglobal.net  Sat Sep  4 13:10:59 2004
From: jcdouville at sbcglobal.net (Jarell Douville)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] Traffic switch script
Message-ID: <20040904201059.63649.qmail@web81010.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi,

I was wondering if there is a port in freebsd that
monitors network traffic, and if there is a way to
write a script so if any ip address uses 'somuch'
bandwidth in 'somuch' amount of time the script gets
run which updates a database. And what language should
that script be in? So far I'm just using php.
BandwidthD ?
Thanks.

Jarell


From grayarea at reddagger.org  Sat Sep  4 15:29:38 2004
From: grayarea at reddagger.org (jwithers)
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:29:38 -0700
Subject: [buug] Traffic switch script
In-Reply-To: <20040904201059.63649.qmail@web81010.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040904201059.63649.qmail@web81010.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1094336978.2386.893.camel@localhost>

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=dummynet&sektion=4

Google, friend of the masses.

jpw

On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 13:10, Jarell Douville wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if there is a port in freebsd that
> monitors network traffic, and if there is a way to
> write a script so if any ip address uses 'somuch'
> bandwidth in 'somuch' amount of time the script gets
> run which updates a database. And what language should
> that script be in? So far I'm just using php.
> BandwidthD ?
> Thanks.
> 
> Jarell
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug



From grayarea at reddagger.org  Sat Sep  4 16:49:05 2004
From: grayarea at reddagger.org (jwithers)
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:49:05 -0700
Subject: [buug] Traffic switch script
In-Reply-To: <20040904201059.63649.qmail@web81010.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040904201059.63649.qmail@web81010.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1094341745.2385.902.camel@localhost>

My smartassed reply earlier was off when I read your message closer, I
apologize. I didn't pay attention to the fact that you weren't trying to
limit bandwidth but to trigger a script.

Yeah, bandwidthD should do it along with a script written in most
anything, I would use python, but I pretty much will always use python
for anything that isn't severely crunch intensive.


On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 13:10, Jarell Douville wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if there is a port in freebsd that
> monitors network traffic, and if there is a way to
> write a script so if any ip address uses 'somuch'
> bandwidth in 'somuch' amount of time the script gets
> run which updates a database. And what language should
> that script be in? So far I'm just using php.
> BandwidthD ?
> Thanks.
> 
> Jarell
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug



From mp at rawbw.com  Thu Sep  9 21:27:21 2004
From: mp at rawbw.com (Michael Paoli)
Date: Thu,  9 Sep 2004 21:27:21 -0700
Subject: [buug] Re: Bay area keysigning meetings and mailing list
In-Reply-To: <20040909190715.GX33243@klapaucius.zer0.org>
References: <20040909190715.GX33243@klapaucius.zer0.org>
Message-ID: <1094790441.41412d2913fba@webmail.rawbw.com>

There's now a (San Francisco) Bay Area keysigning mailing list, with
archiving, and some upcoming keysigning events in the Bay Area.
http://zer0.org/mailman/listinfo/ba-keysign/
2004-09-28 Mountain View https://www.biglumber.com/x/web?ev=40234
2004-10-04 Berkeley (at least proposed, see below)
Seems an e-mail to some regional folks on www.biglumber.com and a lot of
reply-all lead to the list (with archiving, and at least some initial
keysigning events) :-).

references/excerpts:
http://www.buug.org/
http://bad.debian.net/
http://www.balug.org/
http://oakland.pm.org/

Quoting Gregory Sutter <gsutter "at" zer0.org>:

> Hey all.  After discussion at our Tied House keysigning last night, I
> came up with a couple of ideas.

> First, why is there no semi-regular keysigning meeting?  BALUG and
> BAFUG and countless others seem to be able to have monthly meetings.
> So, I propose meeting at Jupiter in Berkeley on October 4 2004,
> and continuing monthly meetings on the first Monday of each month,
> perhaps in rotating Berkeley-SF-peninsula locations.  Jupiter, 21st
> Amendment in SF, and Tied House in Mtn View all seem like great
> places to be drinkers with a PGP problem.  Or vice versa.

> Second, to facilitate coordination and discussion for those who are
> interested, without bothering those who are not interested, I've
> created a mailing list.  Please feel free to sign yourself up.
> IMO we should continue our discussion on the list so we can stop
> flooding random email addresses.

>   http://zer0.org/mailman/listinfo/ba-keysign/

>   ba-keysign-subscribe at zer0.org