Re: [Solved] Re: localhost web apps and cookie blocking

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:42:14 -0400 Dan Ritter wrote: > Celejar wrote: > > Interesting. I thought my usecase was a pretty straightforward one - I > > have various typical home user services that I have no intention of > > making available on the public internet, so I don't bother with SSL, > > bu

Re: [Solved] Re: localhost web apps and cookie blocking

Celejar wrote: > Interesting. I thought my usecase was a pretty straightforward one - I > have various typical home user services that I have no intention of > making available on the public internet, so I don't bother with SSL, > but I do want to access them relatively securely across my local >

[Solved] Re: localhost web apps and cookie blocking

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:26:36 +0300 Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:45:13AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > I have various web (HTTP, not HTTPS) apps (e.g., pi-hole, Home > > Assistant) running on localhost (either actually on localhost, or on > > another host but accessed via 'l

Re: localhost web apps and cookie blocking

Hi. On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:45:13AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > I have various web (HTTP, not HTTPS) apps (e.g., pi-hole, Home > Assistant) running on localhost (either actually on localhost, or on > another host but accessed via 'localhost' via ssh port forwarding > (LocalForward) that req

Re: localhost

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 19:40:24 + "Russell L. Harris" wrote: > I am attempting to configure Apache2 (in Debian 10) as a local server > for web site development. > > I see on the "Apache2 Debian Default Page" the Debian logo; the > browser reports the image location as: > > http://localhost/

Re: localhost

Apache is a whole different beast with things like its own directory aliases. This may help: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/getting-started.html Marco > On Feb 2, 2020, at 3:40 PM, Russell L. Harris wrote: > > I am attempting to configure Apache2 (in Debian 10) as a local server > for web

Re: localhost:631 and sudouser

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:39:59AM CET, Sthu Deus said: > Good day. > > How the printers are administered through the 631th port when only sudo > users are available? > > Thank You for Your time. > You can configure (in /etc/cups/cupsd.conf) for a group to have administrative rights on printer

Re: localhost:631 and sudouser

Am 27. Jan, 2011 schwätzte Sthu Deus so: moin moin, How the printers are administered through the 631th port when only sudo users are available? Not sudo users, rather the root user. By default sudo switches to root account privileges, but it can grant access as other users as well. On my sy

Re: Localhost IMAP (Dovecot) Not Being Delivered After Exim4 Upgrade

>I enabled dovecot's pop3 and could get the messages that way, just fine. >Messages just sat in the mail /var/mail/$USER directory running the IMAP. Had >been working just fine yesterday. >Any ideas? Need to add something to exim4 config? Bug? >Should it have affected the IMAP at all?? Worked OK

re: localhost prefixing problem

I modified some configurations and updated exim4 and when I try sending get the error message: [error sending: no such host as localhostoutgoing.verizon.net] I edited /etc/hostname on the local system to have localhost in it rather than debian too. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: localhost prefixing problem

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 09:26:27AM -0600, Jude DaShiell wrote: > sample email message cut here: >> From [EMAIL PROTECTED]/POP3 Sat Feb 9 10:18:16 2008 > Newsgroups: Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0500 (EST) > From: Jude DaShiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/POP3> > X-X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAI

re: localhost prefixing problem

Kevin, The /etc/email-addresses wasn't set up properly but whatever is causing these malformed addresses is overwriting mail user agent headers and is unaffected by the contents of /etc/email-addresses apparently. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe"

Re: localhost prefixing problem

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 09:26:27AM -0600, Jude DaShiell wrote: > sample email message cut here: >> From [EMAIL PROTECTED]/POP3 Sat Feb 9 10:18:16 2008 > Newsgroups: Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0500 (EST) > From: Jude DaShiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/POP3> > X-X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAI

re: localhost prefixing problem

sample email message cut here: From [EMAIL PROTECTED]/POP3 Sat Feb 9 10:18:16 2008 Newsgroups: Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0500 (EST) From: Jude DaShiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/POP3> X-X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test message Fcc: sent-mail Message-ID: <[EMAIL PR

Re: localhost prefixing problem

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:40:27AM -0600, Jude DaShiell wrote: > I tried using exim4 and alpine to send a piece of email from one account to > another. I suppose I ought to have given this machine the same domain name > as verizon.net rather than left it at localhost since even with address > h

Re: localhost versus mydomain

Nyizsnyik Ferenc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:49:14 +0200 | mess-mate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > Hi, | > i've troubles with my localhost. | > When i do a http://localhost/xxx | > 'requested url was not found' error. | > The server search for http://mydomain.com/xxx

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts (official history note)

Hi, On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote: > Hi guys, > > Just wondering, which is correct: > > 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost > > or > > 127.0.0.1localhost > > The linux networking howto > (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/NET3-4-HOWTO-5.html

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 11:03 +, David Hart wrote: > On Sat 2006-11-25 23:58:42 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:51:49PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > > > > > > I've had stand-alone (aka secure) boxes called localhost, with only the > > > standard 127.0.0.1 /etc/hosts

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Sat 2006-11-25 23:58:42 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:51:49PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > > > > I've had stand-alone (aka secure) boxes called localhost, with only the > > standard 127.0.0.1 /etc/hosts entry. Never had a problem. > > Never tried to install leafn

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:51:49PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2006-11-21 15:49:07 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > Indeed your hosts.allow probably wasn't complete. In addition to > > localhost, you should have a

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On 2006-11-22 13:41:22 +0100, David Jardine wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > Well, the result of the hostname command depends on the /etc/hosts > > file and if your configuration is incorrect, it may not give you a > > consistent result. > > Not her

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On 2006-11-21 19:51:49 -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > The machine should always have a FQDN, though it may be resolved > > locally only (in particular if your machine is not on a network). > > Otherwise you'll have problems with so

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > Well, the result of the hostname command depends on the /etc/hosts > > file and if your configuration is incorrect, it may not give you a > > consistent result. On 22.11.06 13:41, David Jardine wrote: > Not here. It uses th

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Well, the result of the hostname command depends on the /etc/hosts > file and if your configuration is incorrect, it may not give you a > consistent result. Not here. It uses the /etc/hostname file. I changed the entry in /etc

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On 2006-11-21 15:49:07 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > I was talking about problem with 'hostname', not problem with 'hosts'. Sorry, this wasn't clear. > Why do you still talk about 'hosts'? Well, the result of the hostname command depends on the /etc/hosts file and if your configuration

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2006-11-21 15:49:07 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > Indeed your hosts.allow probably wasn't complete. In addition to > localhost, you should have added the hostname. Or perhaps the IP > address 127.0.0.1. > > > there of

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

> Am 2006-11-13 02:07:52, schrieb David Jardine: > > To muddy the water a little more, I have > > > > 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback On 19.11.06 15:14, Michelle Konzack wrote: > This is definitivly wrong! > > An /etc/hosts file can have only 3 fields plus comment. no, there may be

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 03:14:48PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: > An /etc/hosts file can have only 3 fields plus comment. Who says? -- David Jardine "Running Debian GNU/Linux and loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

Michelle Konzack wrote: Am 2006-11-13 02:07:52, schrieb David Jardine: To muddy the water a little more, I have 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback This is definitivly wrong! An /etc/hosts file can have only 3 fields plus comment. It should be 127.0.0.1 localho

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

Am 2006-11-13 02:07:52, schrieb David Jardine: > To muddy the water a little more, I have > > 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback This is definitivly wrong! An /etc/hosts file can have only 3 fields plus comment. It should be 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost #

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On 17.11.06 08:25, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2006-11-14 09:19:09 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > I do and I did. However, "hostname -s", contrary to hostname's manual page, > > does not return first segment of the system hostname, but resolves the FQDN > > first and returns first segment

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On 2006-11-14 09:19:09 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > I do and I did. However, "hostname -s", contrary to hostname's manual page, > does not return first segment of the system hostname, but resolves the FQDN > first and returns first segment of the resulting hostname. See my (refused) > bug

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On 13.11.06 13:21, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2006-11-13 10:48:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > some time ago I was pondering about this issue, because having > > 'fnote' (name of by notebook) as first caused problems with some > > services expecting 127.0.0.1 to map to localhost (which

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 08:57:01PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:07:52AM +0100, David Jardine wrote: > > > To muddy the water a little more, I have > > > > 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback > > > > where "quash" is the name of the machine. I don't remember

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On 2006-11-13 10:48:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > some time ago I was pondering about this issue, because having > 'fnote' (name of by notebook) as first caused problems with some > services expecting 127.0.0.1 to map to localhost (which is imho a > MUST), and 'hostname -s' returned 'lo

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

Hans du Plooy wrote: > > 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost This is the default Debian configuration, but it is a good question as to why it is necessary. You have to use "hostname.domainhostname" format for a real hostname and domain, but what is the point with loca

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:07:52AM +0100, David Jardine wrote: > > To muddy the water a little more, I have > > > > 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback > > > > where "quash" is the name of the machine. I don't remember how I came > > to do this, but it must have been from some debian

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On 12.11.06 23:28, Hans du Plooy wrote: > Just wondering, which is correct: > > 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost > > or > > 127.0.0.1localhost I think that the second one is correct. Imho, 127.0.0.1 should always map to 'localhost' without domain, even if some oth

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:15 -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote: > > 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost > > > > I was always under the impression the first is the proper way. I seem > > to be having issues with resovling

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:07:52AM +0100, David Jardine wrote: > To muddy the water a little more, I have > > 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback > > where "quash" is the name of the machine. I don't remember how I came > to do this, but it must have been from some debian documenta

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote: > Hi guys, > > Just wondering, which is correct: > > 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost > > or > > 127.0.0.1localhost > > The linux networking howto > (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/NET3-4-HOWTO-5.html) mud

Re: localhost in /etc/hosts

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote: > Hi guys, > > Just wondering, which is correct: > > 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost > > I was always under the impression the first is the proper way. I seem > to be having issues with resovling localhost

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2006-02-08 19:41:12, schrieb Rob Blomquist: > >>Feb 8 17:54:12 localhost -- MARK -- >>Feb 8 18:14:12 localhost -- MARK -- >>Feb 8 18:34:12 localhost -- MARK -- >>Feb 8 18:54:12 localhost -- MARK -- >>Feb 8 19:14:12 localhost -- MARK -- >>Feb 8 19:34:12 localhost

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

Am 2006-02-08 19:41:12, schrieb Rob Blomquist: > Feb 8 15:14:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 15:34:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 15:54:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 16:14:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 16:34:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 16:54:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 17:14:11

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

Gene Heskett wrote: [...] Not Sigh. The question as I see it, must be 'how do we adjust this hey I'm bored interval' to something a little bit less distracting, like maybe once a day at midnight or some such sillyness? I'd much druther have real data in MY logs thank you. :) man syslog

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

Rob Blomquist wrote (09-02-2006 06:41): On Wednesday 08 February 2006 8:31 pm, Alexander Schmehl so eloquently stated: That's just your syslogs way to say "I'm still alive and bored". Note the 20 minute intervalls between the entries. Interesting. I have never had syslogd become bored with

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

Hi! * Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060209 06:41]: > Interesting. I have never had syslogd become bored with any other distro. And > now, I learn that Debian is boring. > > Sigh. It is. It's just working, no fun while hacking... can you imagine something more boring than a system which j

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

On Thursday 09 February 2006 00:41, Rob Blomquist wrote: >On Wednesday 08 February 2006 8:31 pm, Alexander Schmehl so eloquently > stated: Hi! > >* Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060209 04:41]: >> Feb 8 15:14:11 localhost -- MARK -- > >[..] > >> Feb 8 19:34:12 localhost -- MARK -- >> >> There

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 8:31 pm, Alexander Schmehl so eloquently stated: Hi! * Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060209 04:41]: > Feb 8 15:14:11 localhost -- MARK -- [..] > Feb 8 19:34:12 localhost -- MARK -- > > There's nobody around this computer called Mark. ;-) > > What the heck are

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

Hi! * Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060209 04:41]: > Feb 8 15:14:11 localhost -- MARK -- [..] > Feb 8 19:34:12 localhost -- MARK -- > > There's nobody around this computer called Mark. ;-) > > What the heck are these messages? I can't say I have seen them before. That's just your syslogs

Re: localhost -- MARK -- ????????

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 19:41, Rob Blomquist wrote: > Feb 8 15:14:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 15:34:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 15:54:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 16:14:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 16:34:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb 8 16:54:11 localhost -- MARK -- > Feb

Re: localhost vanished

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:07:39 +0530 Joydeep Bakshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 28 Apr 2005 6:43 pm, Kent West wrote: > > Jpydeep Bakshi wrote: > > >I have just checked *ping 127.0.0.1* and have found *network > > > unreachable* > > > > What does "/etc/network/interfaces" look like? >

Re: localhost kernel: atkbd.c: Unknown key pressed

On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 11:09:29AM +0100, Charlie Grosvenor wrote: > On Sunday, September 05, 2004 3:10 AM, Pigeon wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 08:56:42PM +0100, Charlie Grosvenor wrote: > > > Hello, I have a Microsoft Wireless Desktop Elite keyboard, I keep getting > > > messages like these:

Re: localhost kernel: atkbd.c: Unknown key pressed

ember 05, 2004 3:10 AM Subject: Re: localhost kernel: atkbd.c: Unknown key pressed > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 08:56:42PM +0100, Charlie Grosvenor wrote: > > Hello, I have a Microsoft Wireless Desktop Elite keyboard, I keep > getting > > messages like these: > > > > Se

Re: localhost kernel: atkbd.c: Unknown key pressed

On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 08:56:42PM +0100, Charlie Grosvenor wrote: > Hello, I have a Microsoft Wireless Desktop Elite keyboard, I keep getting > messages like these: > > Sep 4 19:31:27 localhost kernel: atkbd.c: Unknown key pressed (translated > set 2, code 0xd9 on isa0060/serio0). > Sep 4 19:31

Re: localhost -> /etc/hosts?

> On 2004-01-11 14:57:07 +1100, Russell Shaw wrote: >> In /etc/hosts: >> 127.0.0.1 localhost >> 192.168.0.1 mypc > > According to what has been said somewhere else, this is incorrect. > You need a FQDN here. I don't think it matters. If you have DNS you shouldn't

Re: localhost -> /etc/hosts?

On 2004-01-11 14:57:07 +1100, Russell Shaw wrote: > In /etc/hosts: > 127.0.0.1 localhost > 192.168.0.1 mypc According to what has been said somewhere else, this is incorrect. You need a FQDN here. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web:

Re: localhost -> /etc/hosts?

>> Ok. Strange my install didn't have it. Creating it was enough to satisfy SM. > > I think etherconf handles it via debconf. apt-get install etherconf. I'm running in a User Mode Linux Virtual Private Server (UMLVPS?) instance at linode.com so it probably wasn't there for a reason. I think I'll s

Re: localhost -> /etc/hosts?

Michael B Allen wrote: Michael B Allen wrote: Doesn't Debian have an /etc/hosts file? SquirrelMail needs to resolve 'localhost'. What's the correct way to do this on Debian? In /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 localhost 192.168.0.1 mypc Ok. Strange my install didn't have it. Creating it was enough

Re: localhost -> /etc/hosts?

> Michael B Allen wrote: >> Doesn't Debian have an /etc/hosts file? SquirrelMail needs to resolve >> 'localhost'. >> What's the correct way to do this on Debian? > > In /etc/hosts: >127.0.0.1 localhost >192.168.0.1 mypc Ok. Strange my install didn't have it. Creating it was enough t

Re: localhost -> /etc/hosts?

Michael B Allen wrote: Doesn't Debian have an /etc/hosts file? SquirrelMail needs to resolve 'localhost'. What's the correct way to do this on Debian? In /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 localhost 192.168.0.1 mypc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl

Re: localhost refuses logins from same machine

On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 05:58:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 12:09:14PM -0400, Antonio Rodriguez wrote: > > What could the reason be for this? > > Refuses logins in what way? What are you using to try to log in? What is > the error message? Have you recently edited t

Re: localhost refuses logins from same machine

On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 17:09, Antonio Rodriguez wrote: > What could the reason be for this? try logging in from a different machine. If you provide more info, maybe, we could help you more. Shri -- Shri Shrikumar

Re: localhost refuses logins from same machine

On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 12:09:14PM -0400, Antonio Rodriguez wrote: > What could the reason be for this? Refuses logins in what way? What are you using to try to log in? What is the error message? Give us something to work with here. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EM

Re: localhost not working

* Asa Liton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > Hello, > > I'm a very new user of linux (debian). So > I don't know much about the system. I have > apache installed and running but, typing > "localhost" and clicking on a browser is > not working. I don't even know which file > to send. Can you please

Re: localhost connection refused (SOLVED)

On 29 Jan 2002, Harold Bibik wrote: > > This was sent to me off the list but I wanted to post it > so it might help someone else in the future: > _ > > After a new woody installation a few months ago, I was unable to > connect to localhost, but my ppp and mail services worked

Re: localhost connection refused (SOLVED)

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:35:53PM -0500, Harold Bibik wrote something like this: > > > last week I did a fresh install of Woody > on a single machine, single user desktop that has a dialup > connect to the net. > > I have not been able to connect to localhost for some reason > > I've tried

Re: localhost connection refused

On 28 Jan 2002, Harold Bibik wrote: > > last week I did a fresh install of Woody > on a single machine, single user desktop that has a dialup > connect to the net. > > I have not been able to connect to localhost for some reason > > I've tried apache and dhttpd and trying to http://localhost >