- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Thanks
by Pierce Barnard Nov. 12, 2002

Nov. 12, 2002

Hi , I just wanted to thank all those who assisted me in getting Samba up and running. Thanks again.

1 0

Re: [Wlug] mounting bsd44 under RedHat
by Peter Gutowski Nov. 11, 2002

Nov. 11, 2002

sorry for the confusion. Here's the corrected snippet: I think you really need to type in 'ufstype=44bsd' and not just '44bsd' so your mount command probably should be: mount -t ufs -o ufstype=bsd44 /dev/hdc1 /hdc1 ( in your linux src directory, see fs/ufs/super.c ) HTH. -pg

2 2

Re: [Wlug] mounting bsd44 under RedHat
by Peter Gutowski Nov. 11, 2002

Nov. 11, 2002

I think you really need to type in 'ufsoption=44bsd' and not just '44bsd' so your mount command probably should be: mount -t ufs -o ufstype=bsd44 /dev/hdc1 /hdc1 ( in your linux src directory, see fs/ufs/super.c ) HTH. -pg On Monday, November 11, 2002 1:45 PM, Christopher B Stank <stanky(a)WPI.EDU> wrote: >Opps! > >When I said bsd44, I actually meant 44bsd. > >Mount options for ufs > ufstype=value > > UFS is a file system widely used in different operating >systems. The problems are differences among implementations. Features of >some implementations are undocumented, so its hard to recognize the type >of ufs automatically. That's why the user must specify the type of ufs by >mount option. Possible values are: > > old Old format of ufs, this is the default, read only. > > 44bsd For filesystems created by a BSD-like system >(NetBSD,FreeBSD,OpenBSD). > >etc. > >Sorry for any confusion! I have also tried it without the -o 44bsd and >get the same error. > >/Chris > > -- Peter Gutowski <peter(a)linuxchamps.com> // tel.: (413) 531-0123 "When in company, put not your hands to any part of the body not usually discovered." --George Washington, _Rules for Civility and Decent Behavior_

1 0

Re: [Wlug] mounting bsd44 under RedHat
by Peter Gutowski Nov. 11, 2002

Nov. 11, 2002

Sometimes you gotta believe the error message. I've reread the mount man page and I see no reference to bsd44 as being a legal option. Have you tried issuing the command without the '-o bsd44'? On Monday, November 11, 2002 7:19 AM, Christopher B Stank <stanky(a)parrottech.net> wrote: >Greetings All! > >I am having an issue when attempting to mount a bsd44 (a freebsd >partition) under a base install of Redhat 8.0. > >The kernel is 2.4.18-14, and has loaded the ufs f/s module. > >The FAT looks like: > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >/dev/hdc1 * 1 1912 15358108+ a5 FreeBSD >/dev/hdc2 * 1913 8796 55295730 a5 FreeBSD >/dev/hdc3 * 8797 9688 7164990 a5 FreeBSD >/dev/hdc4 * 9689 9731 345397+ a5 FreeBSD > >I have attempted to mount the hdc1 partition as follows: >mount -t ufs -o bsd44 /dev/hdc1 /hdc1 > >and I get the following error: >"mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hdc1, > or too many mounted file systems" > >Does anyone have any insight as to what I am doing wrong! Any help would >be greatly appreciated, as I need to get the data off these FreeBSD >partitions before I format them as EXT3. > >Thanks in advance! >/Chris >Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org >http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -- Peter Gutowski <peter(a)linuxchamps.com> // tel.: (413) 531-0123 "When in company, put not your hands to any part of the body not usually discovered." --George Washington, _Rules for Civility and Decent Behavior_

2 1

mounting bsd44 under RedHat
by Christopher B Stank Nov. 11, 2002

Nov. 11, 2002

Greetings All! I am having an issue when attempting to mount a bsd44 (a freebsd partition) under a base install of Redhat 8.0. The kernel is 2.4.18-14, and has loaded the ufs f/s module. The FAT looks like: Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hdc1 * 1 1912 15358108+ a5 FreeBSD /dev/hdc2 * 1913 8796 55295730 a5 FreeBSD /dev/hdc3 * 8797 9688 7164990 a5 FreeBSD /dev/hdc4 * 9689 9731 345397+ a5 FreeBSD I have attempted to mount the hdc1 partition as follows: mount -t ufs -o bsd44 /dev/hdc1 /hdc1 and I get the following error: "mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hdc1, or too many mounted file systems" Does anyone have any insight as to what I am doing wrong! Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I need to get the data off these FreeBSD partitions before I format them as EXT3. Thanks in advance! /Chris -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Bruce Stank cstank(a)nortelnetworks.com CES - Sys Test Engineering (978) 288-6185 Nortel Networks (508) 769-9664 (cel) 600 Technology Park (978) 445-5328 (pgr) M/S E65/60/301 (978) 288-4004 (fax) Billerica, MA 01821 248-6185 (esn)

1 0

How to setup Samba
by Pierce Barnard Nov. 11, 2002

Nov. 11, 2002

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?

3 2

RE: [Wlug] Routing problem -can I believe the ISP tech? #2
by Richard Goodman Nov. 9, 2002

Nov. 9, 2002

> > >> Firewall is based on IPChains firewall from Ziegler's book "Linux >> Firewalls" 1st ed, which denies all then allows as needed. I've >> triple-checked the firewall -- the only non-comment changes made were >> all added ACCEPT statements, all cut&pasted from the Home firewall. >> There are no IP-specific denies that I added to the firewall - and I >> haven't updated rc.firewall.blocked in months. > >Sounds like you're further up on Linux firewalling than I am, actually. For >myself, I run a modified Linux Router Project disk image, and let NAT and >Portsentry take care of most of my issues. If you say it's clean, then it >must be clean. Understand though, the techs will NEVER believe this. At ALL. >If you made changes to a firewall and then you couldn't access, it's >Somebody Else's Problem, and that's their professional opinion. (I should >know, I was one. :) ) > 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 I'd been through the firewall code so many times I just about had it memorized, so I decided to look at the file rc.firewall.blocked which it reads, which has of a list of IPChains statements blocking IP#s (which the main firewall doesn't do). I hadn't really updated this much recently, because when someone started banging on the firewall, it was tough to know if it was a static IP or not. Anyways ... found TWO entries that were <Home IP#>/24 and <Home network>/24 ... basically the same thing. Don't remember putting THOSE in there <g> When I rebuilt the last hacked machine (EFO) I copied rc.firewall and rc.firewall.blocked from the home machine, because I couldn't read the copies I'd backed up from EFO.... so the block against the Home IP was at both ends of the link. The only mystery is why everything worked for two hours Friday night before I reloaded the EFO firewall -- because the rc.firewall.blocked file hadn't been changed in more than a week, and had already been loaded with the firewall when I first brought up the EFO server on Friday. Now if I could get any takers on finding out why none of my servers can send email to each other (but only each other) since they were upgrade from RH7.0 to RH7.3 (sendmail 8.11.6) I'll be all set. [Email to list 10/31] Dick

2 1

RE: [Wlug] Procmail Question
by Marc Hughes Nov. 8, 2002

Nov. 8, 2002

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"

1 0

RE: [Wlug] Procmail Question
by Marc Hughes Nov. 8, 2002

Nov. 8, 2002

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

3 3

Re: [Wlug] Procmail Question
by Peter Gutowski Nov. 8, 2002

Nov. 8, 2002

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: # Mails with a score of 15 or higher are almost certainly spam (with 0.05% # false positives according to rules/STATISTICS.txt). Let's put them in a # different mbox. (This one is optional.) :0: * ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* mail/almost-certainly-spam The above *does* work on my system (RHL8.0). So maybe the second ":" is not optional all the time? HTH, Peter On Friday, November 8, 2002 8:45 AM, Marc Hughes <HughesM(a)tomsnyder.com> wrote: >I have a procmail question.... I have this rule: > >:0 >* ^From:.*hughesm@tomsnyder.com >test > >That doesn't seem to work. But this rule... > >:0c >* ^From:.*hughesm@tomsnyder.com >test > >... Works just fine ... But I want the first rule, I don't want it to >copy (what the :0c does) I want it to move (:0) Am I doing something >wrong? > >Thanks! >-Marc > >_______________________________________________ >Wlug mailing list >Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org >http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -- Peter Gutowski <peter(a)linuxchamps.com> // tel.: (413) 531-0123 "When in company, put not your hands to any part of the body not usually discovered." --George Washington, _Rules for Civility and Decent Behavior_

2 1