Andrew & others,
At Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:42:41 -0700 A.S-W. wrote,
"that does not mean that a rule for POP3 is not needed. I don't
remember if shorewall is case sensitive, but I bet it is in the
context of defining a rule. maybe post the actual config line to
produces the error?"
My /etc/sho
Paul & others,
At Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:33:50 -0700 Paul Johnson wrote,
"... the FTP server connects to the client: Two
connections are maintained ..."
As I am aware, ssh uses only one connection but it
also gets ACCEPT rules. So I still don't understand why
some protocols, dns, ftp and ssh, ne
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 04:01:39PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Folk,
>
> At Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:40 -0400 Douglas A. Tutty wrote,
> "... if you want to really understand it use
> shorewall after reading shorewall-doc."
>
> ipmasq works but I want to use shorewall.
>
> I wonder why rules
Folk,
At Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:40 -0400 Douglas A. Tutty wrote,
"... if you want to really understand it use
shorewall after reading shorewall-doc."
ipmasq works but I want to use shorewall.
I wonder why rules are needed for FTP but
a rule for POP3 produces a complaint about
"... unknown pro
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 16:01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Folk,
>
> At Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:40 -0400 Douglas A. Tutty wrote,
> "... if you want to really understand it use
> shorewall after reading shorewall-doc."
>
> ipmasq works but I want to use shorewall.
>
> I wonder why rules are nee
Folk,
At Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:40 -0400 Douglas A. Tutty wrote,
"... if you want to really understand it use
shorewall after reading shorewall-doc."
ipmasq works but I want to use shorewall.
I wonder why rules are needed for FTP but not
for POP3. In fact, a rule for POP3 produces a
complaint
Folk,
At Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:40 -0400 Douglas A. Tutty wrote,
"... if you want to really understand it use
shorewall after reading shorewall-doc."
ipmasq works but I want to use shorewall.
I wonder why rules are needed for FTP but not
for POP3. In fact, a rule for POP3 produces a
complaint
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 09:07:32AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dt> Now you're using shaw.ca for your home domain. Do you own that? Would
> you like to e.g. relay mail for all of shaw.ca?
>
> Not really.
Didn't think so :)
>
> OK, I've invented the domain name petershouse;
> the curre
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 09:07:32AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Douglas,
>
> dt> Now you're using shaw.ca for your home domain. Do you own that? Would
> you like to e.g. relay mail for all of shaw.ca?
>
> Not really.
>
> OK, I've invented the domain name petershouse;
> the current host
Douglas,
dt> Now you're using shaw.ca for your home domain. Do you own that? Would
you like to e.g. relay mail for all of shaw.ca?
Not really.
OK, I've invented the domain name petershouse;
the current hosts file follows. Please let me know of any
remaining errors.
Isn't there a place to
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:20:24AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dt> if you don't own peasthope.yi.org, then I wouldn't use it even locally.
>
> But I do own the machine and the name.
OK
I, personally, for the 127.0.0.1 would only use localhost and
localhost.localdomain
> yi.org is a dynamic
Douglas,
dt> if you don't own peasthope.yi.org, then I wouldn't use it even locally.
But I do own the machine and the name.
yi.org is a dynamic dns service. Not
already being allocated is a precondition
to assigning "peasthope.yi.org" to my computer.
dt> It is a valid name.
So ... I miss
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 08:12:44PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 04:38:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > # /etc/hosts file
> > 127.0.0.1 peasthope.yi.orgjoule localhost
> ^^
> this should be: localho
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 04:38:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Douglas & others,
>
> dt> Now you will have three networks. ...
> ... You shouldn't have to add routes like this ...
>
> Right oh.
>
> dt> change this to 172.23.5.1, and change heaviside's to 172.23.5.2
>
> The revised config
Douglas & others,
dt> Now you will have three networks. ...
... You shouldn't have to add routes like this ...
Right oh.
dt> change this to 172.23.5.1, and change heaviside's to 172.23.5.2
The revised configuration follows. Everything
appears OK now. There is no hub consuming
power and two
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 02:40:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Folk,
>
> My LAN has a Debian router, joule, and two subordinate
> machines, curie and heaviside. The three connect to an
> old Linksys 10Base-T hub. joule connects to a
> cable modem through a second NIC and runs
> ipmasq.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 02:40:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My LAN has a Debian router, joule, and two subordinate
> machines, curie and heaviside. The three connect to an
> old Linksys 10Base-T hub. joule connects to a
> cable modem through a second NIC and runs
> ipmasq.
>
> Curre
Folk,
My LAN has a Debian router, joule, and two subordinate
machines, curie and heaviside. The three connect to an
old Linksys 10Base-T hub. joule connects to a
cable modem through a second NIC and runs
ipmasq.
Currently I want to add a third NIC to joule,
remove the hub and connect each
18 matches
Mail list logo
