On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:31:59 -0900
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you need it in hosts.allow. ALL: PARANOID might be causing the
> problem here since NAT lans rarely have reverse DNS working properly.
There is no NAT here (yet), but I do have a properly working local
DNS. Now I have
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:25:46PM -0300, Christoph Simon wrote:
> >
> > statd: 192.168.1.1
> >
> > and such to the proper machines.
>
> Thanks for the reply, but I'm not sure if I understood this. If I put
> this line to hosts.deny, wouldn't this mean to explicitly deny access
> of this compu
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:11:32 -0900
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 06:25:55PM -0300, Christoph Simon wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm trying to set up NFS between two potato boxes running a custom
> > 2.4.1 kernel (Can't change easily neither potato nor this kernel). I
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 06:25:55PM -0300, Christoph Simon wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm trying to set up NFS between two potato boxes running a custom
> 2.4.1 kernel (Can't change easily neither potato nor this kernel). In
> one of the exported directories I need file locking, but get lots of:
>
> Feb 18
Hi!
I'm trying to set up NFS between two potato boxes running a custom
2.4.1 kernel (Can't change easily neither potato nor this kernel). In
one of the exported directories I need file locking, but get lots of:
Feb 18 14:01:17 kernel: lockd: cannot monitor 192.168.1.1
Feb 18 14:01:17 kernel: loc
5 matches
Mail list logo