- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] problems with email to hotmail.com

by Bill Mills-Curran

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:28:36 -0400 > From: Theo Van Dinter <felicity(a)kluge.net> > Reply-To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > Subject: Re: [Wlug] problems with email to hotmail.com > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:10:08PM -0400, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > > I suspect that the problem is that I'm behind a linksys router using > > private IP's and NAT. I've tried talking to Charter tech support, but > > they are worthless -- they just tell me that they only support Outlook > > email. > > > > I've tried configuring Pine so the it uses the Charter smtp server > > directly, but that doesn't seem to help, either. Right now, I'm using > > my local machine, and routing through Charter. > > > > Any ideas? > > Well, there's 2 possible issues. 1) it's likely that they block your > outgoing directly to hotmail's mail servers. 2) most of the hotmail > mail servers seem to be down or rejecting connections for me (via DSL), > so they may just be having problems. > > You can check out if you can connect directly via: > > $ dig hotmail.com mx +short > 5 mx11.hotmail.com. > 5 mx12.hotmail.com. > 5 mx13.hotmail.com. > 5 mx14.hotmail.com. > 5 mx15.hotmail.com. > 5 mx01.hotmail.com. > 5 mx02.hotmail.com. > 5 mx04.hotmail.com. > 5 mx05.hotmail.com. > 5 mx06.hotmail.com. > 5 mx07.hotmail.com. > 5 mx08.hotmail.com. > 5 mx09.hotmail.com. > 5 mx10.hotmail.com. > > > $ telnet mx05.hotmail.com 25 > Trying 64.4.56.199... > telnet: connect to address 64.4.56.199: Connection refused > Trying 65.54.254.145... > Connected to mx05.hotmail.com. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 hotmail.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version: 5.0.2195.4905 ready at Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:17:54 -0700 > quit > 221 2.0.0 hotmail.com Service closing transmission channel > Connection closed by foreign host. > > > (I could only connect to 5, 9, and 13 of all of these 14 hosts...) > > If you see a similar response to the telnet as I have above, you should > be able to connect to hotmail just fine. Since 11 of their 14 hosts > aren't responding, and all of the MX levels are the same (5), there > may be an issue there. I know that you get a round-robin effect with > the hosts, but I don't remember if it's single-attempt round robin (ie: > try mx11, ok it failed, wait a little bit, then try mx11 again), if it's > a single-attempt with lookups in between (ie: try mx11, ok it failed, > wait a little bit, do a lookup and try the returned host round-robin > again (so you may or may not get the same host again)), or if it's a > multiple-attempt round robin (ie: try mx11, ok it failed, try mx12, > ok it failed, continue until one succeeds.) > > > -- > Randomly Generated Tagline: > Hee, hee! I can be a jerk and no one can stop me! > > -- Homer Simpson > Itchy & Scratchy Land > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > Theo, I don't think connectivity is the issue -- I'm getting through to hotmail, they are just refusing to deliver. I can try to send to one of the "good" servers directly and see what happens. Thanks, Bill

April 30, 2002

Re: [Wlug] problems with email to hotmail.com

by Theo Van Dinter

On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:10:08PM -0400, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > I suspect that the problem is that I'm behind a linksys router using > private IP's and NAT. I've tried talking to Charter tech support, but > they are worthless -- they just tell me that they only support Outlook > email. > > I've tried configuring Pine so the it uses the Charter smtp server > directly, but that doesn't seem to help, either. Right now, I'm using > my local machine, and routing through Charter. > > Any ideas? Well, there's 2 possible issues. 1) it's likely that they block your outgoing directly to hotmail's mail servers. 2) most of the hotmail mail servers seem to be down or rejecting connections for me (via DSL), so they may just be having problems. You can check out if you can connect directly via: $ dig hotmail.com mx +short 5 mx11.hotmail.com. 5 mx12.hotmail.com. 5 mx13.hotmail.com. 5 mx14.hotmail.com. 5 mx15.hotmail.com. 5 mx01.hotmail.com. 5 mx02.hotmail.com. 5 mx04.hotmail.com. 5 mx05.hotmail.com. 5 mx06.hotmail.com. 5 mx07.hotmail.com. 5 mx08.hotmail.com. 5 mx09.hotmail.com. 5 mx10.hotmail.com. $ telnet mx05.hotmail.com 25 Trying 64.4.56.199... telnet: connect to address 64.4.56.199: Connection refused Trying 65.54.254.145... Connected to mx05.hotmail.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 hotmail.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version: 5.0.2195.4905 ready at Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:17:54 -0700 quit 221 2.0.0 hotmail.com Service closing transmission channel Connection closed by foreign host. (I could only connect to 5, 9, and 13 of all of these 14 hosts...) If you see a similar response to the telnet as I have above, you should be able to connect to hotmail just fine. Since 11 of their 14 hosts aren't responding, and all of the MX levels are the same (5), there may be an issue there. I know that you get a round-robin effect with the hosts, but I don't remember if it's single-attempt round robin (ie: try mx11, ok it failed, wait a little bit, then try mx11 again), if it's a single-attempt with lookups in between (ie: try mx11, ok it failed, wait a little bit, do a lookup and try the returned host round-robin again (so you may or may not get the same host again)), or if it's a multiple-attempt round robin (ie: try mx11, ok it failed, try mx12, ok it failed, continue until one succeeds.) -- Randomly Generated Tagline: Hee, hee! I can be a jerk and no one can stop me! -- Homer Simpson Itchy & Scratchy Land

April 30, 2002

problems with email to hotmail.com

by Bill Mills-Curran

I'm a Charter user, and something has changed between charter and hotmail so that I can no longer send email to hotmail.com accounts. I CAN send if I use Charter's web mail interface, but I much prefer to stick with pine. I suspect that the problem is that I'm behind a linksys router using private IP's and NAT. I've tried talking to Charter tech support, but they are worthless -- they just tell me that they only support Outlook email. I've tried configuring Pine so the it uses the Charter smtp server directly, but that doesn't seem to help, either. Right now, I'm using my local machine, and routing through Charter. Any ideas? TIA, Bill

April 30, 2002

Re: [Wlug] bug report

by Josh Huber

Bill Mills-Curran <subssn594(a)charter.net> writes: > BTW, I'm running RedHat 7.1. So, who do I tell? Well, in case you haven't done anything about this yet, sending a report to the linux-kernel list might be a good idea. Run that oops message through ksymoops first, running with the same kernel which caused the oops messages: ksymoops < file_with_oops_in_it and send the output with a description of the problem to the list. Also, after running it through ksymoops, you might browse the lists to see if it's already been reported. ttyl, -- Josh Huber

April 29, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Whee! MIT Flea

by Chuck Haines

If you are looking for a WM, I highly suggest either fluxbox or blackbox (with Fluxbox being the better choice) with the -no-kde and -no-gnome options. On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 09:58, desdinova(a)soupforare.net wrote: > ::Dances around:: > Got so much great swag at the flea this time ^_^; > > Anyway, I picked up two Dolch 486DX/33s, on board scsi, 32meg > for $15. > It's been a loooong time since I've run linux on a 486 (slack > 2.something, iirc) > I'm thinking Debian potato would be alright? I most likely won't > install X, but if I do, I'll use X3.foo with a minimalist > windowmanager... Any suggestions? > > It's going to be alot of shoehorning for sure. > I won't lie, I haven't ran a linux system since my P200 died, she > was a fileserver and random-use machine. So, getting these > running would be great so I could fool around at work during slow > hours. > > Thanks, > James > KB1FJQ > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug -- --------------------------------------------- | Chuck Haines | AIM: CyberGrex | | GDC Webmaster | ICQ: 3707881 | | WPILA Lab Manager | MSN: CyberGrex | | chaines(a)wpi.edu | Yahoo: CyberGrex_27 | --------------------------------------------- Geek by nature, Linux by choice.

April 24, 2002

RE: [Wlug] Regarding M$ enforcement of licenses...

by Simoncini, Matthew

Hello, It's kind of interesting that an email about this very topic landed in my inbox this morning. Here's the link: http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/filters/specialreport/0,14622,6022528 ,00.html Good luck. Matthew On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:44:37 -0400, Stephen C. Daukas wrote: >In case you haven't heard, M$ is auditing a dozen or so large school >districts for compliance on licensing. Of course, this will be ugly and >will run one district an estimated $1,000,000 per year to comply with >M$. That's $1,000,000 more then they pay now. M$ is offering a simplified >arrangement whereby a school system pays a flat fee for every Intel box >(regardless of what it might actually be running) that would run that same >district about $30,000. You can see where this is headed! > >Aside from noting that people's dishonesty about paying the real costs >associated with M$ software has gotten them into this trouble (if only >because the real costs are not apparent to "management"), I'm wondering >what is available as a real alternative to M$ for the great unwashed masses. > >Of course, the answer I would expect to hear is "Linux!", but... > >I'm talking about a solution that is useable by those who are not rabid >members of a LUG, or Sys admins in their day job. I'm talking about >productivity software that will seamlessly read and write M$ file formats >(Excel, Word, etc.). I don't know, for example, if Star Office is a real >alternative because I don't know how well it interoperates with those who >use Word, for example, on a daily basis. Perhaps there is a solution that >will reliably run M$ applications without having to buy the OS, but that is >only a step in the right direction. > >I was hoping to hear suggestions about what is out there and if Linux is >ready to work seamlessly in heterogeneous High-Tech world. This might be a >good topic for one of the WLUG meetings... > >Steve > >_______________________________________________ >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

April 23, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Regarding M$ enforcement of licenses...

by avedis＠ma.ultranet.com

On 23 Apr 2002, at 7:44, Stephen C. Daukas wrote: > will run one district an estimated $1,000,000 per year to comply with > M$. That's $1,000,000 more then they pay now. M$ is offering a simplified So what would be the comparable costs for linux boxes and a sysadmin's salary, either part or full time? Maybe the schools don't even know that Linux is an option, and we should tell them. Imagine a whole generation of kids raised on Linux instead of MS. > I was hoping to hear suggestions about what is out there and if Linux is What about LindowsOS? Greg Avedissian

April 23, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Regarding M$ enforcement of licenses...

by The Greater Worcester Land Trust

Star Office in its various iterations is pretty damn solid, and that is after using three different releases over the years. There are occassional glitches in representation of the same document between M$ and SO, but to be fair to the SO suite there are occassional glitches in representation of the same document between M$ and M$ (assuming you are not trapped from even opening the document in the first place.) Also the filters to Word Perfect etc etc are two way filters (not import only) and allow kids who have family computers running alternative software more flexibility. The other benefit of SO (and OO if you decide that the admin is up to a little more complexity (and you seem to imply that they are not)) is that they can run it on their Win boxes and dabble in Linux without causing confusion to the office suite end user. That makes it possible for them to consider jumping ship in a silent revolution should they build up the confidence. Just some thoughts to ignore. Colin On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:44:37 -0400, Stephen C. Daukas wrote: >In case you haven't heard, M$ is auditing a dozen or so large school >districts for compliance on licensing. Of course, this will be ugly and >will run one district an estimated $1,000,000 per year to comply with >M$. That's $1,000,000 more then they pay now. M$ is offering a simplified >arrangement whereby a school system pays a flat fee for every Intel box >(regardless of what it might actually be running) that would run that same >district about $30,000. You can see where this is headed! > >Aside from noting that people's dishonesty about paying the real costs >associated with M$ software has gotten them into this trouble (if only >because the real costs are not apparent to "management"), I'm wondering >what is available as a real alternative to M$ for the great unwashed masses. > >Of course, the answer I would expect to hear is "Linux!", but... > >I'm talking about a solution that is useable by those who are not rabid >members of a LUG, or Sys admins in their day job. I'm talking about >productivity software that will seamlessly read and write M$ file formats >(Excel, Word, etc.). I don't know, for example, if Star Office is a real >alternative because I don't know how well it interoperates with those who >use Word, for example, on a daily basis. Perhaps there is a solution that >will reliably run M$ applications without having to buy the OS, but that is >only a step in the right direction. > >I was hoping to hear suggestions about what is out there and if Linux is >ready to work seamlessly in heterogeneous High-Tech world. This might be a >good topic for one of the WLUG meetings... > >Steve > >_______________________________________________ >Wlug mailing list >Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org >http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

April 23, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Regarding M$ enforcement of licenses...

by desdinova＠soupforare.net

On 23 Apr 2002, at 7:44, Stephen C. Daukas wrote: > In case you haven't heard, M$ is auditing a dozen or so large school > districts for compliance on licensing. Of course, this will be ugly > and will run one district an estimated $1,000,000 per year to comply > with M$. That's $1,000,000 more then they pay now. M$ is offering a > simplified arrangement whereby a school system pays a flat fee for > every Intel box (regardless of what it might actually be running) that > would run that same district about $30,000. You can see where this is > headed! <snip> Actually, I believe it's every box, regardless of manufacturer. (ie apples too) James

April 23, 2002

Regarding M$ enforcement of licenses...

by Stephen C. Daukas

In case you haven't heard, M$ is auditing a dozen or so large school districts for compliance on licensing. Of course, this will be ugly and will run one district an estimated $1,000,000 per year to comply with M$. That's $1,000,000 more then they pay now. M$ is offering a simplified arrangement whereby a school system pays a flat fee for every Intel box (regardless of what it might actually be running) that would run that same district about $30,000. You can see where this is headed! Aside from noting that people's dishonesty about paying the real costs associated with M$ software has gotten them into this trouble (if only because the real costs are not apparent to "management"), I'm wondering what is available as a real alternative to M$ for the great unwashed masses. Of course, the answer I would expect to hear is "Linux!", but... I'm talking about a solution that is useable by those who are not rabid members of a LUG, or Sys admins in their day job. I'm talking about productivity software that will seamlessly read and write M$ file formats (Excel, Word, etc.). I don't know, for example, if Star Office is a real alternative because I don't know how well it interoperates with those who use Word, for example, on a daily basis. Perhaps there is a solution that will reliably run M$ applications without having to buy the OS, but that is only a step in the right direction. I was hoping to hear suggestions about what is out there and if Linux is ready to work seamlessly in heterogeneous High-Tech world. This might be a good topic for one of the WLUG meetings... Steve

April 23, 2002