- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] meeting next week?

by Eric Stein

Unfortunately I'll have gone home by the 10th. Oh well, you guys will still be here next year, right? Eric Andy Stewart wrote: > Hi Eric et al, > > The website says May 10th (but I haven't yet updated the home page). > > There is currently no scheduled topic for the May meeting. > > We do have a topic for the June meeting (a rep from Sybase will give the > talk). I have lots of goodies from Sybase to give away at that meeting > (thanks Sybase!). > > I'll try to get the website updated within the next day. > > Andy > > -- > Andy Stewart, Founder > Worcester Linux Users' Group > Worcester, MA, USA > http://www.wlug.org -- Eric Stein WPI CS 2009 Treasurer, Student Pugwash

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 HI all, Comcast appears unwilling to whitelist the Town email domain since this is quite easily spoofed by spam generators. The Town is considering using port forwarding on their firewall to reach the mail server. The Town is unwilling to put the mail server on or outside of the firewall, claiming that the risk level is too high for them to support. Later, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA, USA http://www.wlug.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFETpgZHl0iXDssISsRArvsAJ95z2vFXZiZVK7eu/A/zBwxgBVWIQCfebM/ gDQBjl+MCVf9/PE68lIpEmE= =Sfj+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] meeting next week?

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric Stein wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm only writing to ask whether or not there will be a meeting held on > the 3rd and if we have a topic. Thanks. > Hi Eric et al, The website says May 10th (but I haven't yet updated the home page). There is currently no scheduled topic for the May meeting. We do have a topic for the June meeting (a rep from Sybase will give the talk). I have lots of goodies from Sybase to give away at that meeting (thanks Sybase!). I'll try to get the website updated within the next day. Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA, USA http://www.wlug.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFETpMPHl0iXDssISsRAiwvAJ9orMhoVudi2hzxubaUkdYLcWYWlQCfZvvC Y60GVTZjcDaF9dDJFefrThs= =aG8C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Bill Mills-Curran

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:58:13AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:03:30 -0400 > Subject: > Content-Description: ATT10815498.txt > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:36:20AM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > I'll add that WPI uses separate servers for receiving and sending SMTP > > connections. The sending servers are not in any DNS MX records, so > > any site using "spam blocking" tactics that require the sending SMTP > > server to be listed as an MX would block WPI email. > > Most mid-to-large organizations will do this as well. It would be > complete stupidity for a receiver to not accept mail from a server whose > domain MX record doesn't include that server -- they'd be blocking a vast > majority of domains. What's more plausible is that the receiver is blocking > mails from domains lacking an MX record, but even that's going to cause false > positives (FPs) on a large amount of domains. > > The usual thing that happens is that receivers block mails where the host > part of the email address (to the right of the @) has no A or MX record > at all. Since to the receiver it looks like that host doesn't exist, > why accept mail from it? > > ie: > > HELO nonexistant.example.com > > where, typically, nonexistant is a host behind a firewall, but isn't in the > external DNS zone. Usually all hosts behind a firewall send to a relay > gateway which masquerades the headers and envelope so that the receiving > server sees an externally available name. ie: > > nonexistant.example.com (helo nonexistant ...) -> > relay.example.com (helo example.com) -> > your-server > > so when your-server gets the mail, it looks up "example.com" and finds A/MX > records, so accepts the mail. > > -- > Randomly Generated Tagline: > "Many people equate the word 'daemon' with the word 'demon,' implying some > kind of Satanic connection between UNIX and the underworld." - Evi Nemeth I'm wondering whether it might actually be a reverse lookup issue. I recently had to opt into a static IP at my web & mail services provider so that reverse lookups would work. AOL has started blocking email from senders that don't have a valid PTR record. If the mail server is behind a firewall, this _could_ be the issue. I use a mail server at home behind a firewall, but I don't send directly to the recipient -- I use the "smart host" feature of sendmail. The "masquerade_as" feature might be what they need. The trick is to make the smtp server look as though it's using the "external" hostname and IP address. I'm just guessing, though. :-) Bill

April 25, 2006

meeting next week?

by Eric Stein

Hi all, I'm only writing to ask whether or not there will be a meeting held on the 3rd and if we have a topic. Thanks. -- Eric Stein WPI CS 2009 Treasurer, Student Pugwash

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Theo Van Dinter

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:36:20AM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > I'll add that WPI uses separate servers for receiving and sending SMTP > connections. The sending servers are not in any DNS MX records, so > any site using "spam blocking" tactics that require the sending SMTP > server to be listed as an MX would block WPI email. Most mid-to-large organizations will do this as well. It would be complete stupidity for a receiver to not accept mail from a server whose domain MX record doesn't include that server -- they'd be blocking a vast majority of domains. What's more plausible is that the receiver is blocking mails from domains lacking an MX record, but even that's going to cause false positives (FPs) on a large amount of domains. The usual thing that happens is that receivers block mails where the host part of the email address (to the right of the @) has no A or MX record at all. Since to the receiver it looks like that host doesn't exist, why accept mail from it? ie: HELO nonexistant.example.com where, typically, nonexistant is a host behind a firewall, but isn't in the external DNS zone. Usually all hosts behind a firewall send to a relay gateway which masquerades the headers and envelope so that the receiving server sees an externally available name. ie: nonexistant.example.com (helo nonexistant ...) -> relay.example.com (helo example.com) -> your-server so when your-server gets the mail, it looks up "example.com" and finds A/MX records, so accepts the mail. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Many people equate the word 'daemon' with the word 'demon,' implying some kind of Satanic connection between UNIX and the underworld." - Evi Nemeth

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Brian J. Conway

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Stephen Ketcham wrote: > Then this isn't the full Comcast story, because I just received your > mail on a comcast.net account. > Same. Any specifics on the bounce error they're getting? I know Comcast, like many providers, will refused SMTP connections that originate from what it or its blacklist consider dynamic IP ranges (cable, DSL, etc), so to get around it I have to relay any mail I send to Comcast addresses through my ISP's mail server (adding "comcast.net smtp:my.isps.mailserver.com" to /etc/postfix/transport or /etc/mail/mailertable for Postfix and Sendmail, respectively). Of course, I'd imagine Comcast distinguishes business class customers from standard home connections, but any more info on the error could be helpful. Brian J. Conway bconway(at)alum.wpi.edu "LINUX is obsolete" - Andrew S. Tanenbaum, creator of Minix - Jan 29, 1992

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Stephen Ketcham

Then this isn't the full Comcast story, because I just received your mail on a comcast.net account. Steve On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:52:32AM -0400, Eric Martin wrote: >> this is a M$ exchange server with an smtp connector. When I write an >> email, the smtp connector stamps it's id on my email outbound to the >> comcast servers. See where this is going? We don't want >> exhange.local.domain to be an mx record for my domain, it doesn't >> even >> face the internet. By this solution that Comcast is using, all email >> from local.domain would be bounced. > > I'll add that WPI uses separate servers for receiving and sending SMTP > connections. The sending servers are not in any DNS MX records, so > any site using "spam blocking" tactics that require the sending SMTP > server to be listed as an MX would block WPI email. > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Chuck Anderson

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:52:32AM -0400, Eric Martin wrote: > this is a M$ exchange server with an smtp connector. When I write an > email, the smtp connector stamps it's id on my email outbound to the > comcast servers. See where this is going? We don't want > exhange.local.domain to be an mx record for my domain, it doesn't even > face the internet. By this solution that Comcast is using, all email > from local.domain would be bounced. I'll add that WPI uses separate servers for receiving and sending SMTP connections. The sending servers are not in any DNS MX records, so any site using "spam blocking" tactics that require the sending SMTP server to be listed as an MX would block WPI email.

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Eric Martin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Keith gave the basics on mx records. The only thing I would add is mail servers talk to each other, so if you look at your mail headers you can see all of the mail servers that your email has gone to. One problem with modern spam solutions is they themselves are a mail server apppliance, as opposed to software. Allow me to elaborate with two common configurations. Mail comes in via mail.local.domain. mail.local.domain is a spam filter pointed to the internet, which results in the mx record for local.domain to be mail.local.domain. This is a less expensive solution, so it only filters one way. Behind this is a M$ exchange server with an smtp connector. When I write an email, the smtp connector stamps it's id on my email outbound to the comcast servers. See where this is going? We don't want exhange.local.domain to be an mx record for my domain, it doesn't even face the internet. By this solution that Comcast is using, all email from local.domain would be bounced. The other configuration is roughly the same, except the mail appliance filters on both directions, therefore allowing mail to pass. (Software on your mail gateway falls into this category). While this solution sounds great on paper, I think they are going to inadvertently drop a lot of legit email. Granted, I don't handle my employer's spam solution (although I used to at my last job) so I could just be blowing steam. Hope they iron out the kinks. BTW, where do I get ISP people that I can talk to on the phone who know about MX records? My guys don't even know what cable modems are. Keith Wright wrote: >> From: Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> >> >> In my town, I've noticed that other town employees with whom I >> send email are unable to send return email to me. This started >> happening about a month ago. My ISP is Comcast. > > I am just going to type something crazy off the top of my head and > go to sleep. Take two and call me in the morning. > >> This description was sent to me by a town employee: >> >> o In an attempt to limit the amount of SPAM on the Comcast >> Internet system, Comcast does not allow external email servers to >> send mail to Comcast email accounts where the sending email >> server's MX records do not match. >> >> o Because the TOWN mail server is behind our firewall our >> incoming mail IP address is different from our sending mail IP >> address. In other words our MX records do not match consequently >> Comcast blocks our mail from being sent to Comcast email >> addresses. > > Your town employees are impressively well informed. > >> Basic questions: >> >> - - What is an MX record? > > A Mail eXchange record is given by a DNS server when you ask for > it. You did not say the domain you are sending to, but you can see > comcast.com mx records thus: > > C:> $ dig comcast.net mx C:> C:> <Redacted> C:> C:> comcast.net. > 900 IN MX 5 gateway-r.comcast.net. C:> comcast.net. > 900 IN MX 5 gateway-s.comcast.net. > > There you see the name of two servers that will (aledgedly) accept > mail for goodguy(a)comcast.net. > > C:> <Redacted> C:> C:> gateway-r.comcast.net. 900 IN A > 216.148.227.126 C:> gateway-r.comcast.net. 900 IN A > 204.127.198.26 C:> gateway-s.comcast.net. 900 IN A > 63.240.76.26 C:> gateway-s.comcast.net. 900 IN A > 204.127.202.26 > > There you see their IP addresses. You can talk to them like this > > C:> $ telnet 216.148.227.126 smtp C:> Trying 216.148.227.126... C:> > Connected to gateway-r.comcast.net (216.148.227.126). C:> Escape > character is '^]'. C:> 220 rwcrmxc18.comcast.net - Maillennium > ESMTP/MULTIBOX rwcrmxc18 #337 C:> helo dsl.keithdiane.us C:> 250 > rwcrmxc18.comcast.net C:> mail from: kwright(a)keithdiane.us C:> 501 > need MAIL FROM:<name@domain> C:> MAIL FROM: <kwright(a)keithdiane.us> > C:> 250 ok C:> RCPT TO: <andystewart(a)comcast.net> C:> 250 ok C:> > DATA C:> 354 ok C:> This is just kwright goofing on you. C:> Read > your WLUG messages I will explain. C:> . C:> 250 ok . > id=20060425052454r1800cg1fje [f] C:> quit C:> 221 > rwcrmxc18.comcast.net C:> QUIT C:> Connection closed by foreign > host. > > It seemed to work, and I am typing this on a machine behind an NAT > translation firewall (other kinds should be transparent). This is > not my mail server, but it seemed to work. Only Andy can say > whether they accepted the message and then trashed it in flagrant > violation of RFC-2821, which tells how to do such things. They are > more tight-assed than most about using the proper case, and I have > never seen one that required the <brackets.com> around the address. > > > >> - - Is it normal for the mail server to be behind the firewall? >> I thought perhaps it would be either exposed to the net or on the >> DMZ. > > If you have only one IP addresses, it seems that either your mail > server must _be_ the firewall, or be behind it. I don't think it's > crazy, but the only way to find out how "normal" it is would be to > break it and see if the people who complain are normal. > >> I am wondering if there is some misconfiguration or perhaps a >> different configuration that could be used to alleviate this >> problem. > > I am not convinced the problem has been exactly described, although > your town employee seems to know a lot more than I do about it. > You may be standing in the middle of a pissing contest. If a > customer and a local authority work together you might get > comcast's leg quite wet. > >> I have no expertise running a mail server and thought somebody on >> this list might be able to help. > > I hope you have learned your lesson about expecting help from > people with expertise. That reminds me of a short FAQ that > appeared in the Managment School Student Newspaper: > > Q: What are those strange creatures in the hall? At first, I took > them for apes, but they all wear bluejeans. > > A: Those are not apes, those are PhD candidates. The hair, > grunting, and hunched gait become more pronounced just before > Qualifying Exams. Rather than run from them, you will find that you > can speak to them, if you ask questions about your homework. The > answers can be helpful if you can keep them focused on your > problem. If the answer begins "In equilibrium..." you know you have > asked the wrong one. > > -- Keith _______________________________________________ Wlug > mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFETf9vaI8VEtSi4H8RApUdAJ40Z5ZleYLDzWmPDexxPhXqD+g5wgCeP5Ro I6DYshgubsdL5XiXt9TLWL0= =bMM1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Keith Wright

> From: Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> > > In my town, I've noticed that other town employees with > whom I send email are unable to send return email to me. > This started happening about a month ago. My ISP is > Comcast. I am just going to type something crazy off the top of my head and go to sleep. Take two and call me in the morning. > This description was sent to me by a town employee: > > o In an attempt to limit the amount of SPAM on the Comcast > Internet system, Comcast does not allow external email > servers to send mail to Comcast email accounts where the > sending email server's MX records do not match. > > o Because the TOWN mail server is behind our firewall > our incoming mail IP address is different from our sending > mail IP address. In other words our MX records do not match > consequently Comcast blocks our mail from being sent to > Comcast email addresses. Your town employees are impressively well informed. > Basic questions: > > - - What is an MX record? A Mail eXchange record is given by a DNS server when you ask for it. You did not say the domain you are sending to, but you can see comcast.com mx records thus: C:> $ dig comcast.net mx C:> C:> <Redacted> C:> C:> comcast.net. 900 IN MX 5 gateway-r.comcast.net. C:> comcast.net. 900 IN MX 5 gateway-s.comcast.net. There you see the name of two servers that will (aledgedly) accept mail for goodguy(a)comcast.net. C:> <Redacted> C:> C:> gateway-r.comcast.net. 900 IN A 216.148.227.126 C:> gateway-r.comcast.net. 900 IN A 204.127.198.26 C:> gateway-s.comcast.net. 900 IN A 63.240.76.26 C:> gateway-s.comcast.net. 900 IN A 204.127.202.26 There you see their IP addresses. You can talk to them like this C:> $ telnet 216.148.227.126 smtp C:> Trying 216.148.227.126... C:> Connected to gateway-r.comcast.net (216.148.227.126). C:> Escape character is '^]'. C:> 220 rwcrmxc18.comcast.net - Maillennium ESMTP/MULTIBOX rwcrmxc18 #337 C:> helo dsl.keithdiane.us C:> 250 rwcrmxc18.comcast.net C:> mail from: kwright(a)keithdiane.us C:> 501 need MAIL FROM:<name@domain> C:> MAIL FROM: <kwright(a)keithdiane.us> C:> 250 ok C:> RCPT TO: <andystewart(a)comcast.net> C:> 250 ok C:> DATA C:> 354 ok C:> This is just kwright goofing on you. C:> Read your WLUG messages I will explain. C:> . C:> 250 ok . id=20060425052454r1800cg1fje [f] C:> quit C:> 221 rwcrmxc18.comcast.net C:> QUIT C:> Connection closed by foreign host. It seemed to work, and I am typing this on a machine behind an NAT translation firewall (other kinds should be transparent). This is not my mail server, but it seemed to work. Only Andy can say whether they accepted the message and then trashed it in flagrant violation of RFC-2821, which tells how to do such things. They are more tight-assed than most about using the proper case, and I have never seen one that required the <brackets.com> around the address. > - - Is it normal for the mail server to be behind the > firewall? I thought perhaps it would be either exposed to > the net or on the DMZ. If you have only one IP addresses, it seems that either your mail server must _be_ the firewall, or be behind it. I don't think it's crazy, but the only way to find out how "normal" it is would be to break it and see if the people who complain are normal. > I am wondering if there is some misconfiguration or > perhaps a different configuration that could be used to > alleviate this problem. I am not convinced the problem has been exactly described, although your town employee seems to know a lot more than I do about it. You may be standing in the middle of a pissing contest. If a customer and a local authority work together you might get comcast's leg quite wet. > I have no expertise running a mail server and thought > somebody on this list might be able to help. I hope you have learned your lesson about expecting help from people with expertise. That reminds me of a short FAQ that appeared in the Managment School Student Newspaper: Q: What are those strange creatures in the hall? At first, I took them for apes, but they all wear bluejeans. A: Those are not apes, those are PhD candidates. The hair, grunting, and hunched gait become more pronounced just before Qualifying Exams. Rather than run from them, you will find that you can speak to them, if you ask questions about your homework. The answers can be helpful if you can keep them focused on your problem. If the answer begins "In equilibrium..." you know you have asked the wrong one. -- Keith

April 25, 2006

Mail servers, Comcast, and spam

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 HI gang, In my town, I've noticed that other town employees with whom I send email are unable to send return email to me. This started happening about a month ago. My ISP is Comcast. This description was sent to me by a town employee: o In an attempt to limit the amount of SPAM on the Comcast Internet system, Comcast does not allow external email servers to send mail to Comcast email accounts where the sending email server's MX records do not match. o Because the TOWN mail server is behind our firewall our incoming mail IP address is different from our sending mail IP address. In other words our MX records do not match consequently Comcast blocks our mail from being sent to Comcast email addresses. Basic questions: - - What is an MX record? - - Is it normal for the mail server to be behind the firewall? I thought perhaps it would be either exposed to the net or on the DMZ. I am wondering if there is some misconfiguration or perhaps a different configuration that could be used to alleviate this problem. I have no expertise running a mail server and thought somebody on this list might be able to help. Thanks! Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA, USA http://www.wlug.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFETaM0Hl0iXDssISsRAqzYAKCIypfN3gf2xKOxc3QGaaeJdfvjxQCdHFTZ 2HNpPjjH/PvR9p2VdTcHzrA= =nnna -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 25, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Ubuntu vs Kubuntu

by brad

On Thursday 20 April 2006 20:12, Mike wrote: > At the last meeting someone mentioned some kind of fallout between Ubuntu > and Kubuntu. I missed most the details and was wondering if anyone had a > link to an article that explains this. I have been searching, but Google > isn't playing nice today. > for some reason i get the impression that this dispute has passed and been resolved. calling it a fallout would be an exaggeration. although if you're interested I would suggest reading comments and posts from those involved in the dispute. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-users/2006-April/004871.html http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1917 the lead developer of kubuntu was recently interviewed, though that topic didn't come up, it was brough up in the comments of the story on dot.kde.org, which is where i got the above links from. http://behindubuntu.org/interviews/JonathanRiddell/ http://dot.kde.org/1144898425/ -- brad

April 21, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Ubuntu vs Kubuntu

by Andre Lehovich

> At the last meeting someone mentioned some kind of fallout between Ubuntu > and Kubuntu. I missed most the details and was wondering if anyone had a > link to an article that explains this. I have been searching, but Google > isn't playing nice today. Linux Weekly News had a blurb about it: http://lwn.net/Articles/179628/ --Andre __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

April 21, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Ubuntu vs Kubuntu

by Adam Keck

Here is an article from Google news: http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=962 -Adam On Apr 20, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Mike wrote: > At the last meeting someone mentioned some kind of fallout between > Ubuntu > and Kubuntu. I missed most the details and was wondering if anyone had > a > link to an article that explains this. I have been searching, but > Google > isn't playing nice today. > > Thanks, > Mike > > > -- > Emacs would be a far better OS if it shipped with a halfway-decent text > editor. --Anonymous > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

April 21, 2006

Ubuntu vs Kubuntu

by Mike

At the last meeting someone mentioned some kind of fallout between Ubuntu and Kubuntu. I missed most the details and was wondering if anyone had a link to an article that explains this. I have been searching, but Google isn't playing nice today. Thanks, Mike -- Emacs would be a far better OS if it shipped with a halfway-decent text editor. --Anonymous

April 21, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Linux Friendly Wireless Handhelds

by Chuck Anderson

On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:45:50PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > I've seen bluetooth and WiFI...I'm not sure it matters which. I have > WiFi but I currently don't have bluetooth. I'm not sure which is > supported at work for syncing to Exch/Outlook. I have a BlackBerry 7520. I like it as a PDA for Internet, Email, Address Book, etc. but it makes a bad phone due to bad UI design and awkward shape. It syncs with the Exchange server via the provider's wireless network (e.g. Nextel). It has bluetooth, but I've never used it. I think it can use bluetooth headsets, but I'm not sure if it can sync over bluetooth. I've used the USB cradle to sync it, but only to Outlook. Honestly, I haven't tried to use it with Linux, since the wireless synchronization does what I want for the most part and lets me ignore Outlook/Exchange completely and just use that as a back-end store for backup purposes. On the plus side, I have downloaded cool apps to it like Google Local Mobile which provides driving directions and maps on the handheld, and an SSH client.

April 20, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Linux Friendly Wireless Handhelds

by Scott Venier

Andy Stewart said: > > I've seen bluetooth and WiFI...I'm not sure it matters which. I have > WiFi but I currently don't have bluetooth. I'm not sure which is > supported at work for syncing to Exch/Outlook. > I've got a Treo 600 (no BT support, or WiFi, for that matter) but sync wirelessly to Lookout via IRDA. It should sync just fine with anything via USB. Scott

April 20, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Linux Friendly Wireless Handhelds

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric Martin wrote: > Are you wanting to sync via bluetooth, or... I've seen bluetooth and WiFI...I'm not sure it matters which. I have WiFi but I currently don't have bluetooth. I'm not sure which is supported at work for syncing to Exch/Outlook. Andy > Andy Stewart wrote: > >>>HI Everybody, >>> >>>I'm looking for a handheld device which can synchronize with Linux >>>and with Outlook (for work). I'd like the synchronization to be >>>wireless. I don't much care if it is a smartphone or a PDA - the >>>calendar application is the most important for my needs. >>> >>>Devices that seem to come close are BlackBerry and Palm Treo. I'm >>>still researching this topic, so there may be others. >>> >>>Do you use such a device? >>> >>>Thanks! >>> >>>Andy >>> >>>_______________________________________________ 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 - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA, USA http://www.wlug.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFERvXeHl0iXDssISsRAvHDAJ9SYQIk4PpjSn7e25oJLuX3wIlXmQCeLjFj ltVmQ2ASoI5oYOTNekuyKG0= =NS+2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 20, 2006

Re: [Wlug] Linux Friendly Wireless Handhelds

by Eric Martin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Are you wanting to sync via bluetooth, or... Andy Stewart wrote: > > HI Everybody, > > I'm looking for a handheld device which can synchronize with Linux > and with Outlook (for work). I'd like the synchronization to be > wireless. I don't much care if it is a smartphone or a PDA - the > calendar application is the most important for my needs. > > Devices that seem to come close are BlackBerry and Palm Treo. I'm > still researching this topic, so there may be others. > > Do you use such a device? > > Thanks! > > Andy > > _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFERvT/aI8VEtSi4H8RAiBFAJ4q+uh4O8+ITfY7Y9BHDk7UZ1nh9QCgzALh v8wZHfrG03eHg2KR0pEo5BU= =hdH+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 20, 2006

Linux Friendly Wireless Handhelds

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 HI Everybody, I'm looking for a handheld device which can synchronize with Linux and with Outlook (for work). I'd like the synchronization to be wireless. I don't much care if it is a smartphone or a PDA - the calendar application is the most important for my needs. Devices that seem to come close are BlackBerry and Palm Treo. I'm still researching this topic, so there may be others. Do you use such a device? Thanks! Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA, USA http://www.wlug.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFERuI0Hl0iXDssISsRAjJaAJ9pGc1r/7eXdLU87x2mdAI1ISSCnwCfZWGu MIG//w8z+/RMW21lyYdaP8E= =CZ/Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 20, 2006

Re: [Wlug] linux courses

by Frank Sweetser

On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:03:26PM -0700, Mike Leo wrote: > I have taken RH and other week long certification programs and am certified > in many things. > > however, the classes themselves are pretty weak, usually only covering RH and > only what's in the RH book, superficially at best. > > I have read tons of materials on linux and continually do so all the time. > > But does anyone know of a good linux course out there anywhere, outside of > the training mills like New Horizons, or even RH? Well, that depends. After you get into the basics, you need to start being more specific regarding exactly what you're looking for a class on. Kernel internals? System administration techniques? Security? Sendmail? Databases like MySQL or Posgresql? -- Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu | For every problem, there is a solution that WPI Network Engineer | is simple, elegant, and wrong. - HL Mencken GPG fingerprint = 6174 1257 129E 0D21 D8D4 E8A3 8E39 29E3 E2E8 8CEC

April 19, 2006

linux courses

by Mike Leo

I have taken RH and other week long certification programs and am certified in many things. however, the classes themselves are pretty weak, usually only covering RH and only what's in the RH book, superficially at best. I have read tons of materials on linux and continually do so all the time. But does anyone know of a good linux course out there anywhere, outside of the training mills like New Horizons, or even RH? College level course's seem to be the best choice so far, but I have not found one yet, nor do I want to spend the time if it is not a mature syllabus. I have been "on" linux for 3 years now, and I am beyond the basic's but not quite into kernel development yet, so a somewhere in between class is what I am hoping for. Thanks in advance, Mike

April 19, 2006

Re: [Wlug] How fast is your CD burner with Linux ?

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 HI everybody, Here are the results of my benchmark. Your mileage will probably vary. Liars figure and figures lie. Past performance is no indicator of future performance. Yadda yadda yadda. :-) NEC 3550 DVD burner from Newegg - ------------------------------- - ------- Read DVD no-dma DMA off (hdparm -d0 /dev/xxx) time dd if=/dev/xxx of=/dev/null 3.9 MB/sec steady at that rate - no variation due to physically larger tracks Read DVD dma DMA on (hdparm -d1 /dev/xxx) time dd if=/dev/xxx of=/dev/null 11.52 MB/sec varied between 8-15 MB/sec as the benchmark progressed there was a definite "cliff" from 15 MB back to 8 MB partway through the benchmark, and it increased back up to 15 MB I didn't notice (audibly) if the drive slowed down. Both reads were 9GB dual layer DVD - ------- Read CD no-dma 3.6 MB/sec (level data rate) Read CD dma 5.03 MB/sec (increasing data rate) - ------- Write CD no-dma K3b burn an ISO image of 700 MB K3b reports 24X average write rate gkrellm looks like around 3.9 MB/sec (eyeball) Burn takes around 4 minutes (approx) Write CD dma K3b burn an ISO image of 700 MB K3b reports 37X average write rate gkrellm shows increasing data rate Burn took around 2 min 15 sec - 2 min 30 sec (approx) - ------- Summary: It turns out that I did not have DMA enabled on this drive. Why? Heck, I don't know. Now that I have dma enabled, and it runs reliably, I'm going to leave it enabled since the performance is MUCH better. Later, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA, USA http://www.wlug.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEQFNTHl0iXDssISsRAh5BAJ0bCDa7eIpvGX6dAyUTsXNaKRF3bgCfZjIL hckU/pg9Ux+9pSYjPfOJbhc= =fizg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 15, 2006

Re: [Wlug] How fast is your CD burner with Linux ?

by Robert L Krawitz

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:52:17 -0400 From: Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> I asked this question at the most recent WLUG meeting. I've noticed that my CD burner (according to K3B) averages about 24X, even though it is advertised as a 48X CD burner. Is this to be expected, or do I have a cheap(er) drive that can't sustain the data rate? It is an IDE/ATAPI drive (NEC3550). It takes approx. 4 minutes for me to burn a 700MB CD (including some fiddling and diddling about calibrating power, fixating, etc). I use Memorex CD-R media (52X, 700MB, 80 min). I'm curious about your CD buring experiences, especially if they are faster than mine. I'd like to know what drive you have, the media you use, and most importantly, how did you determine your drive speed? CD's burn faster (in MB/sec) near the outside of the disc than near the inside, and they're burned from inside out. So they're always going to start slow and speed up. I have a 48x drive, and if I'm burning a full disc (where the CD is capable of that) it reaches something close to that near the end of the disc. At the beginning it's more like 16x; it averages maybe 25-30x for the whole disc, exclusive of fixating, power calibration, etc. 4 minutes net for a 700 MB CD sounds about right to me. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk(a)alum.mit.edu> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf(a)uunet.uu.net Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton

April 15, 2006