December 2003 - WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] new mutt user ?'s

by Bill Mills-Curran

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:52:30PM -0500, Charles R. Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:41:07PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > > Received: from newguy.mills.curran (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) > > by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id > > hB2M5NMk002065 > > for <mills-curran_bill(a)emc.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:24 > > -0500 > > Received: (from bcurran@localhost) > > by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id > > hB2M58Vk002061 > > for mills-curran_bill(a)emc.com; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:08 -0500 > > Does newguy.mills.curran resolve locally to either 127.0.0.1 or your > public IP? Usually this is done in /etc/hosts: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost newguy.mills.curran > > OR: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost > eth0.ip.address newguy.mills.curran Neither -- I have it set for my private IP (NAT firewall): 192.168.1.12 newguy.mills.curran newguy Bill

Dec. 3, 2003

Re: [Wlug] new mutt user ?'s

by Bill Mills-Curran

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:56:01PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:41:07PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > > So, I think I have something in sendmail that's causing this. Any > > ideas? > > Perhaps a difference between calling the sendmail binary to put the mail > in the queue and connecting to port 25? Although IIRC both do sendmail > binary by default. > > It sounds like some kind of auth or dns timeout. <snip> I agree, but I haven't found it yet. I did find something in the sendmail logs -- a "delay" and "xdelay" that look about the right length for my problem. I'm not sure if that's significant, or I'm just grasping at straws. Here are a couple of entries: Dec 2 17:05:08 newguy sendmail[2061]: hB2M58Vk002061: from=bcurran, size=329, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<20031202220508.GJ1246(a)newguy.mills.curran>, relay=bcurran@localhost Dec 2 17:05:24 newguy sendmail[2065]: hB2M5NMk002065: from=<bcurran(a)mills-curran.net>, size=492, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<20031202220508.GJ1246(a)newguy.mills.curran>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] Dec 2 17:05:24 newguy sendmail[2061]: hB2M58Vk002061: to=mills-curran_bill(a)emc.com, ctladdr=bcurran (500/502), delay=00:00:16, xdelay=00:00:16, mailer=relay, pri=30329, relay=localhost.us.dg.com. [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (hB2M5NMk002065 Message accepted for delivery) Dec 2 17:05:29 newguy sendmail[2067]: hB2M5NMk002065: to=<mills-curran_bill(a)emc.com>, delay=00:00:05, xdelay=00:00:05, mailer=relay, pri=30492, relay=mail.mills-curran.net. [65.18.197.115], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (hB2M5Po13164 Message accepted for delivery) I think they are all associated with a single outgoing email from my home machine to my work address. For now I've buried the problem with a mutt config change, but I'd like to understand the issue and fix the root cause. Thanks, Bill

Dec. 3, 2003

Re: [Wlug] new mutt user ?'s

by Theo Van Dinter

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:41:07PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > So, I think I have something in sendmail that's causing this. Any > ideas? Perhaps a difference between calling the sendmail binary to put the mail in the queue and connecting to port 25? Although IIRC both do sendmail binary by default. It sounds like some kind of auth or dns timeout. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Meanwhile the US military officials are looking for their next target in the war on terrorism. Today President Bush restated his commitment to the war on terror, saying, "You're either with us, or against us, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, both."" - Bill Maher

Dec. 2, 2003

Re: [Wlug] new mutt user ?'s

by Charles R. Anderson

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:41:07PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > Received: from newguy.mills.curran (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) > by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id > hB2M5NMk002065 > for <mills-curran_bill(a)emc.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:24 > -0500 > Received: (from bcurran@localhost) > by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id > hB2M58Vk002061 > for mills-curran_bill(a)emc.com; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:08 -0500 Does newguy.mills.curran resolve locally to either 127.0.0.1 or your public IP? Usually this is done in /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost newguy.mills.curran OR: 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost eth0.ip.address newguy.mills.curran

Dec. 2, 2003

Re: [Wlug] new mutt user ?'s

by Bill Mills-Curran

On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 05:24:54PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > I've made the switch from pine to mutt, and I have 2 questions. > > 1. Why is mutt so slow in sending outgoing email? Pine delivered > outgoing email quickly, but mutt seems MUCH slower -- too slow to > even consider that there's a performance problem. It seems to be > some issue about how it interfaces with sendmail. (I'm using my > own machine as an outgoing relay through my web services > provider.) <snip> I've learned something more about the slowness of mutt... It seems that sendmail is taking about 15 seconds to process the email. Here's a snippet of an email header: Received: from newguy.mills.curran (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB2M5NMk002065 for <mills-curran_bill(a)emc.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:24 -0500 Received: (from bcurran@localhost) by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2M58Vk002061 for mills-curran_bill(a)emc.com; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:08 -0500 These are the 1st 2 header records (in normal reverse order). Note that there's a 16 second gap (it's typically 15) between the 1st and the second. So, I think I have something in sendmail that's causing this. Any ideas? For now, I've set the mutt configuration to submit the email in a subprocess so that I'm not waiting interactively. TIA, Bill

Dec. 2, 2003

RE: [Wlug] Router/firewall

by Hemstreet, Jeffrey L (Jeffrey)

I just bought a Dlink DI-514 from Best buy for $30 after rebates (about 2 weeks ago, $70 before). I would suggest either D-link, Linksys, or Netgear. If you watch the Best Buy/OfficeMax/Staples ads, you can end up one for 30-50. The Wireless Access Points themselves are $80. I bought the Dlink because it's not Linksys/Cisco, and I have been VERY happy with it. All 3 of these devices are fully compatable, so you can buy anyones card and connect with the access point. I would go with the 802.11b wireless unless you have a great need for a large wireless network (5+ clients). Where you plan on running lots of traffic over the wireless (i.e., not just web surfing/email) jeff -----Original Message----- From: wlug-bounces(a)mail.wlug.org [mailto:wlug-bounces@mail.wlug.org]On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:48 PM To: 'Worcester Linux Users Group' Subject: RE: [Wlug] Router/firewall You already have the Linksys router just ad any wireless access point behind it for a reduced cost. This way you can still have a wired network in your house/office and a wireless network as well. An access point without the "router" portion should be cheaper and can offer you more options in control i.e. rules for the wired intranet and different rules for the wireless intranet. I have an older Proxim unit that works well. It uses a PCMCIA card as well as the remote "users" so it's very upgradeable without the need to change the whole unit. ~ Michael LaPointe ~ HorizonNet Communications ~ Http://allLongdistance.com ~ Mailto:mike@alllongdistance.com > -----Original Message----- > From: wlug-bounces(a)mail.wlug.org > [mailto:wlug-bounces@mail.wlug.org] On Behalf Of Doug Chamberlin > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:24 PM > To: Worcester Linux Users Group > Subject: Re: [Wlug] Router/firewall > > > At 11/27/2003 01:38 AM (Thursday), mlong(a)datalong.com wrote: > > >I am looking to replace a Linksys router/firewall with a wireless > >router/firewall > >solution and was wondering what routers others would recommend. > > Err, why not a Linksys wireless router/firewall? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

Dec. 1, 2003

Re: [Wlug] Re: Router/firewall

by mlong＠datalong.com

Thanks for all the replies. I ended up purchasing a D-Link unit and am very impressed with it. It appears to have a stronger wireless signal, more flexibility configuring the firewall, and faster throughput. The faster throughput may be due to the fact that I reconfigured some components. It hasn't been stressed enough yet to say for sure, but it appears that the connectivity problems have been resolved as well. The D-Link gets 2 thumbs up :) Currently I am using standard wep encryption but will look into configuring it to only allow configured mac addresses as well. Cheers, Mike > On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 22:23, Doug Chamberlin wrote: >> [...] >> Err, why not a Linksys wireless router/firewall? > > Or a Linux firewall with a basic WAP hanging off a protected interface? > > Unfortunately, such a critter seems to cost nearly as much the > full-blown, wireless router/firewall products, but they're still a bit > less if you can find them. > > I found Netgear and Buffalo units locally, for about $120, with a > preference for the latter as it has MANY more configuration options for > logging and security. > > I use the basic 802.11 features to protect the link (WEP/WPA, MAC > filtering), and count on my Linux firewall to protect me from wireless > "outsiders" just as I expect it to protect me against Internet-based > "outsiders". This gives me an extra layer of protection from wireless > They have to get IN to the wireless network -- harder but theoretically > not impossible -- and then past my firewall rules to actually DO > anything, at which point hopefully snort and arpwatch have alerted me). > True, a commercial product does the basics, and far more simply. But > then, I wouldn't be using Linux for security if I wanted to take the > easiest route. > > I'm checking out the host-based AP efforts, but haven't made that jump > quit yet. I do like the little commercial products, as they'll fit into > tight places to allow better antenna coverage. > > - Bob > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > >

Dec. 1, 2003

Re: new mutt user ?'s

by Bob George

On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 17:24, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > I've made the switch from pine to mutt, and I have 2 questions. > [...] I've tried Mutt in the past, but ran into a few problems. The biggest has to do with using it with a hierarchy of IMAP folders. I'd like Mutt to flag (highlight) folder with unread messages. Last time I tried, I could get it to highlight folders with new (since last session) messages, but not "remember" older, unread messages. I've gone through several howtos, but never could get this to work. Anyone doing this now? - Bob

Dec. 1, 2003

Re: Router/firewall

by Bob George

On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 22:23, Doug Chamberlin wrote: > [...] > Err, why not a Linksys wireless router/firewall? Or a Linux firewall with a basic WAP hanging off a protected interface? Unfortunately, such a critter seems to cost nearly as much the full-blown, wireless router/firewall products, but they're still a bit less if you can find them. I found Netgear and Buffalo units locally, for about $120, with a preference for the latter as it has MANY more configuration options for logging and security. I use the basic 802.11 features to protect the link (WEP/WPA, MAC filtering), and count on my Linux firewall to protect me from wireless "outsiders" just as I expect it to protect me against Internet-based "outsiders". This gives me an extra layer of protection from wireless They have to get IN to the wireless network -- harder but theoretically not impossible -- and then past my firewall rules to actually DO anything, at which point hopefully snort and arpwatch have alerted me). True, a commercial product does the basics, and far more simply. But then, I wouldn't be using Linux for security if I wanted to take the easiest route. I'm checking out the host-based AP efforts, but haven't made that jump quit yet. I do like the little commercial products, as they'll fit into tight places to allow better antenna coverage. - Bob

Dec. 1, 2003