November 2002 - WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

How to setup Samba

by Pierce Barnard

Hello, I am trying to configure Samba on my Suse Box to share files with my Windows ME box. Is there a webpage or document that I can use to set up Samba?

Nov. 11, 2002

RE: [Wlug] How to setup Samba

by Steve Freitag

http://www.suse.de/us/private/support/howto/samba/ http://hr.uoregon.edu/davidrl/samba.html

Nov. 11, 2002

Re: [Wlug] How to setup Samba

by Karl Hiramoto

http://samba.org/ or http://tldp.org/ On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Pierce Barnard wrote: > Hello, I am trying to configure Samba on my Suse Box to share files with my > Windows ME box. Is there a webpage or document that I can use to set up Samba? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -- ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 Cell: 508-517-4819 Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Better hope you get what you want before you stop wanting it.

Nov. 11, 2002

RE: [Wlug] Routing problem -can I believe the ISP tech? #2

by George Metz

> Well, the problem was in the firewall, but it doesn't explain > EVERYTHING that happened. > > After two hours on the phone Mon afternoon with Qwest tech support > level 2, they insisted I try ping/traceroute with the firewall > disabled. Pings moved through as expected ...hmmmm Heh. Wierd. Glad to see you got it up and running though. On the e-mail question, I've no clue unless they're all using the same hostnames; in which case, it's probably due to something along the lines of relaying being denied. As to the question of why you had connectivity for that two hours, it IS really wierd, but it's possible that the firewall wasn't running at home when you made the changes, or that for some odd reason it hadn't included the rc.firewall.blocked script upon restart... (Okay, stabbing in the dark there.) George

Nov. 9, 2002

RE: [Wlug] Procmail Question

by Marc Hughes

OK, spamassasin looks pretty damned cool ... I love the "reasons" why something is spam. -Marc SPAM: Content analysis details: (8.10 hits, 5 required) SPAM: TO_NO_USER (1.7 points) To: has no local-part before @ sign SPAM: SMTPD_IN_RCVD (1.2 points) Received via SMTPD32 server (SMTPD32-n.n) SPAM: X_PRIORITY_HIGH (0.4 points) Sent with 'X-Priority' set to high SPAM: X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH (0.4 points) Sent with 'X-Msmail-Priority' set to high SPAM: USER_AGENT_OE (0.2 points) X-Mailer header indicates a non-spam MUA (Outlook Express) SPAM: ACT_NOW (0.3 points) BODY: Act Now! Don't Hesitate! SPAM: EXCUSE_14 (0.2 points) BODY: Tells you how to stop further spam SPAM: EXCUSE_1 (0.1 points) BODY: Gives an excuse about why you were sent this spam SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_03_05 (1.1 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 03 to 05 (medium) SPAM: [score: 3] SPAM: BIG_FONT (0.3 points) BODY: FONT Size +2 and up or 3 and up SPAM: HTML_WITH_BGCOLOR (0.3 points) BODY: HTML mail with non-white background SPAM: HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED (0.3 points) BODY: HTML font color is red SPAM: HTML_50_70 (0.3 points) BODY: Message is 50-70% HTML tags SPAM: HTML_FONT_COLOR_NOHASH (0.2 points) BODY: HTML font color is missing hash ( SPAM: HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE (0.2 points) BODY: HTML font color is blue SPAM: MISSING_MIMEOLE (0.5 points) Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE SPAM: CTYPE_JUST_HTML (0.4 points) HTML-only mail, with no text version -----Original Message----- From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:felicity@kluge.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:13 AM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Procmail Question On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:07:37AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > :0: > * 1^1 ^From.*jenny(a)axte84\.com > * 1^1 ^Subject.*MILLION OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES > Badspam Oops, slight update: :0: * 1^0 ^From.*jenny(a)axte84\.com * 1^0 ^Subject.*MILLION OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES Badspam I believe they'd be functionally equivilent for you, but the first one keeps looking for matches after the first hit. The second one stops at 1 hit, so it's more efficient. :) There's a nice discussion about this stuff at: http://www.rosat.mpe-garching.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/1998-01/msg0 0335.html :) -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "This is a beta release of Red Hat Linux. It is not intended for mission critical applications. It's not even intended for non-mission critical applications. Important data should not be entrusted to Wolverine, as it may eat it and make loud belching noises." - RedHat Beta release "Wolverine"

Nov. 8, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Procmail Question

by Charles R. Anderson

On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 09:48:14AM -0500, Marc Hughes wrote: HughesM> This will do an AND between the two conditions ... Is there an easy way HughesM> to OR between them? ... Or do I need to make a separate rule for each HughesM> and every condition? And an even further note... What are the thoughts HughesM> on some of these anti-spam tools that work with procmail? Any HughesM> favorites? They are just perl regexps, so you can use '|' * (^From.*jenny(a)axte84\.com)|(^Subject.*MILLION OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES) Another useful feature is the 'E'lse tag, which executes only if the previous rule did NOT match: :0: * ^From: president(a)whitehouse.gov vip :0E: non-vip -- Charles R. Anderson <cra(a)wpi.edu> / http://angus.ind.wpi.edu/~cra/ PGP Key ID: 49BB5886 Fingerprint: EBA3 A106 7C93 FA07 8E15 3AC2 C367 A0F9 49BB 5886

Nov. 8, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Procmail Question

by Theo Van Dinter

On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:07:37AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > :0: > * 1^1 ^From.*jenny(a)axte84\.com > * 1^1 ^Subject.*MILLION OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES > Badspam Oops, slight update: :0: * 1^0 ^From.*jenny(a)axte84\.com * 1^0 ^Subject.*MILLION OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES Badspam I believe they'd be functionally equivilent for you, but the first one keeps looking for matches after the first hit. The second one stops at 1 hit, so it's more efficient. :) There's a nice discussion about this stuff at: http://www.rosat.mpe-garching.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/1998-01/msg0033… :) -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "This is a beta release of Red Hat Linux. It is not intended for mission critical applications. It's not even intended for non-mission critical applications. Important data should not be entrusted to Wolverine, as it may eat it and make loud belching noises." - RedHat Beta release "Wolverine"

Nov. 8, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Procmail Question

by Theo Van Dinter

On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 09:48:14AM -0500, Marc Hughes wrote: > :0: > * ^From.*jenny(a)axte84\.com > * ^Subject.*MILLION OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES > Badspam > > This will do an AND between the two conditions ... Is there an easy way > to OR between them? ... Or do I need to make a separate rule for each There's a way, although it's really not straightforward... One of my old procmail-only anti-spam rules looked for 8-bit chars in the body: :0BDfh * -1^1 . * 2^1 =[0-9A-F][0-9A-F] * 20^1 [��] * 20^1 [��] * 20^1 [��] * 20^1 =[A-F][0-9A-F] | formail -A "X-Reject: Too many foreign charcters." (from http://www.vex.net/~wadialix/email/chinese/link.html) Which basically says that for any 8 bit char, add 20 "points" to the rule. If there's a quoted-printable char (=XX), add 2 points, and for anything else add -1 points. As long as the rule scores 1+ points (ie: it's positive), it matches. So an or for you would be: :0: * 1^1 ^From.*jenny(a)axte84\.com * 1^1 ^Subject.*MILLION OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES Badspam I belive, haven't tested it. :) Look at the procmailsc man page for more info. > and every condition? And an even further note... What are the thoughts > on some of these anti-spam tools that work with procmail? Any > favorites? SpamAssassin, hands down. :) http://www.spamassassin.org/ Sucessfully catches >98% of the spam I receive, currently at ~2100 a month (with ~5000 blocked at the SMTP level, grrr, stupid spammers!) I used to do a lot of procmail stuff, and now it's just SA. (warning: I'm a SA developer, so I'm a little biased. ;)) -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbour's newspaper, that's the time to do it." - Zen Musings

Nov. 8, 2002

RE: [Wlug] Procmail Question

by Marc Hughes

With the locking (:0:) all seems to work now. I'm guessing it's because I have an IMAP connection open to the mailbox while I receive the new email and it get's processed. While we're talking about procmail... A second question: :0: * ^From.*jenny(a)axte84\.com * ^Subject.*MILLION OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES Badspam This will do an AND between the two conditions ... Is there an easy way to OR between them? ... Or do I need to make a separate rule for each and every condition? And an even further note... What are the thoughts on some of these anti-spam tools that work with procmail? Any favorites? Thanks a lot guys, -Marc -----Original Message----- From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:felicity@kluge.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:21 AM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Procmail Question On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 09:13:18AM -0500, Peter Gutowski wrote: > According to the man page the second ":" is optional, i.e. > > :0: > > but, as a sample of something known to work (from the SpamAssassin > sample .procmailrc) it does use the above syntax. Here's the example: > > So maybe the second ":" is not optional all the time? Just so we're all clear, the second ":" tells procmail that is needs to lock the file before writing to avoid corrupted mailboxes. So it's a good idea if you're writing to a mailbox, but isn't actually required, especially if you're writing to /dev/null or something. I didn't see anything wrong offhand with the procmail rules shown. Can we see the header of an example mail which doesn't work with the original but works with the carbon copy method? (and by work, just to double check, we're talking about the message going into the "test" folder). -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision." - From www.slashdot.org

Nov. 8, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Procmail Question

by Theo Van Dinter

On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 09:13:18AM -0500, Peter Gutowski wrote: > According to the man page the second ":" is optional, i.e. > > :0: > > but, as a sample of something known to work (from the SpamAssassin sample .procmailrc) it does use the above syntax. Here's the example: > > So maybe the second ":" is not optional all the time? Just so we're all clear, the second ":" tells procmail that is needs to lock the file before writing to avoid corrupted mailboxes. So it's a good idea if you're writing to a mailbox, but isn't actually required, especially if you're writing to /dev/null or something. I didn't see anything wrong offhand with the procmail rules shown. Can we see the header of an example mail which doesn't work with the original but works with the carbon copy method? (and by work, just to double check, we're talking about the message going into the "test" folder). -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision." - From www.slashdot.org

Nov. 8, 2002