headers
Matt Magee | 1 Apr 2005 01:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: Upgrading Red Hat 6.2 and Netscape 4.72

If you live around Kennesaw or northwest of Kennesaw, I'd be happy to 
help you set something up on your box if you are not in the mood to do 
it yourself. 

It shouldn't be too hard to set up something more modern and supportable 
on that 166 with a little care.  The real sticking point would be memory. 

Remember... more beer = more work.

Roger Hammons wrote:

>I'm a new subscriber to this list.  Please be patient and forgive any
>faux pas.
>
>Also, I've been in the weeds and woods for several years.  I'm currently
>running
>Red Hat 6.2 (kernel 2.2.14-5.0) on a Pentium 166.  Everything works fine
>(so I've
>been lazy and haven't kept up), EXCEPT that now I need to upgrade from
>Netscape 
>4.72 to a more recent browser to access many web sites.
>
>I bought Firefox - the readme on the CD says it needs R.H. ver 7.x.  The
>download
>Netscape 7.2 info says it needs a Pentium 233.  I looked at the Opera
>web site - 
>I can't tell what hardware / Linux it requires - it only mentions a C++
>library and 
>something about 'X11R6.3+' (?).
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian J. Dowd | 1 Apr 2005 01:16

Re: Q: Enabling VNC into Fedora-C3

Thanks for the correction!
-B

>On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 16:07 -0500, Brian J. Dowd wrote:
>  
>
>>Make sure that ports 6000-6010 are open in both firewalls. They 
>>sequentially represent the virtual terminals.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think that's correct. 6000 is the X port. VNC ports are 5800+
>and 5900+ . 5800 is for the java/http server built into the vncserver,
>and 5900+ is the vncviewer direct port. The "+" is used here to indicate
>that the effective screen number is summed with the base port number.
>For a windows  (M$) system that can't understand multiple users and
>multiple screens, that  number is a "0" (like the IQ of a ....
>nevermind :) while *nix systems can use multple instances thus having
>multiple ports open at once.
>  
>
>>-B
>>(I like the SSH tunneling better)
>>
>>    
>>
>>>ALErs -
>>>
>>>I am used to simply running 'vncserver' to start 'Xvnc' on my RH-7.x
>>>systems, then just connecting from an external viewer.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Geoffrey | 1 Apr 2005 02:23

Re: Re: Upgrading Red Hat 6.2 and Netscape 4.72

Roger Hammons wrote:
> ALErs,
> 
> Thanks to Geoffrey, Bob, James, Dow and Andy 
> for advice and suggestions.  All greatly appreciated.
> 
> Geoffrey, I'm in the mid-town area of Atlanta and
> hope to get to the ALE meeting at Emory in April.

Great bunch of folks run the Emory meeting.  I go to the NW meetings at 
KSU.  So what was your decision regarding your upgrade?

--

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Barnes, Michael | 1 Apr 2005 02:31
Picon

Unable to log on

I am using SusE 9.2 Pro and created an account. For a while I was able to
log in using Xwindows. Now I can only log into the user from the command
line. Could someone help me figure out what I need to do to get the user
back to using Xwindows again.

Thanks
Mike Barnes

**************************************************************
This message, including any attachments, contains confidential information intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies.  You are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
TIAA-CREF
**************************************************************
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Geoffrey | 1 Apr 2005 02:39

Re: Unable to log on

Barnes, Michael wrote:
> I am using SusE 9.2 Pro and created an account. For a while I was
> able to log in using Xwindows. Now I can only log into the user from
> the command line. Could someone help me figure out what I need to do
> to get the user back to using Xwindows again.

When you log in, is it a graphical login or command line?

If it's command line, execute 'startx' once you're logged in.

You can setup your box to boot to the graphical login by setting the 
'initdefault' setting in /etc/inittab as follows:

id:5:initdefault

If you had the GUI login before, did you reboot or something that caused 
it to go away?

--

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
James P. Kinney III | 1 Apr 2005 02:50

Re: Unable to log on

1. press <alt> <f7> to get back to the X screen

If that doesn't work, try alt-f2 through alt-f9. 

If _still no joy, run " ps ax | grep X11R6 "
If that return empty then X is no longer running.

You will need to be the root user at this point. Either logout and log
back in as root or run " su - " and enter the root password.

Now run " grep "id:" /etc/inittab " (you will need the ""'s around the
id: part)

if it says id:5:initdefault:  then run " telinit 5 "

otherwise you will need to edit the /etc/inittab file and change the
line so it reads as above. It might be set to be id:3:initdefault: which
will not start Xwindows. to launch it from the command line run "
startx".

On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 17:31 -0700, Barnes, Michael wrote:
> I am using SusE 9.2 Pro and created an account. For a while I was able to
> log in using Xwindows. Now I can only log into the user from the command
> line. Could someone help me figure out what I need to do to get the user
> back to using Xwindows again.
> 
> Thanks
> Mike Barnes
> 
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard | 1 Apr 2005 03:42
Picon
Favicon

Re: [OT] VoIP recommendations

On Thursday 31 March 2005 01:58 pm, Geoffrey wrote:
> Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hey, I know that there was a meeting on this, but I am looking at
> > getting away from my cell phone and I was thinking about going to a
> > landline, but I think I'd rather go with VoIP given all of it's
> > advantages.
>
> I'm not sure I understand getting rid of your cell phone, you have dsl
> in your car? :)
>
> > Having looked through, I thought that this was something that was
> > discussed on the mailing list, but I can't seem to find it in the
> > archives.  I know that at the meeting people were saying to avoid
> > Vonage.  Other then the 911 issues it experiences, I'm not sure why
> > it's such a "bad" thing.
> >
> > Can anyone that currently has VoIP tell me the best place to go in
> > terms of what they'd recommend and why?  Just curious.  Thanks.
>
> I'm using vonage.  I went with them because another ale member got a
> referral for it.  It just works.  I've had a few outages which did not
> last very long.  The downside is, you'll have a hard time getting to
> anyone on the phone.
>

Been using Vonage for almost two years.  Outages have been minimal.   Most 
recently Mine was out for several days when I screwed up my router.  99%
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Ryan Williams | 1 Apr 2005 06:39

tracking down a spammer on our box

We are running RedHat ES and have someone using our server to send a 
small but steady stream of spam... between 4 and 5 messages per minute, 
so they are smart enough to keep the activity fairly low profile. We've 
already confirmed with ORDB that we are not an open relay. The messages 
are showing up in ps -aux as:

qmailr 19774 0.0 0.0 3436 972 ? S 14:44 0:00 qmail-remote 
remotedomain.com anonymous@... randomuser@...

and our maillogs show messages being delivered which are certainly spam:

Mar 31 15:07:02 server1 qmail: 1112299622.785136 starting delivery 
193807: msg 9536773 to remote randomuser@...

Since the messages are being sent by "anonymous", we are pretty sure 
this is a vulnerable PHP script somewhere on the server that is being 
used, but we are having the hardest time tracking down which one(s) is 
the culprit. Is there any way to track down which domain or script was 
used to send these messages?

Thanks!

Ryan
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
James P. Kinney III | 1 Apr 2005 06:50

Re: tracking down a spammer on our box

Uugh! I am not a PHP person but I suspect that the logging can be turned
up in apache to help with more data on linking a web process to an email
generation.

You should be able to set qmail to not allow a user named "anonymous" to
send mail.

On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:39 -0500, Ryan Williams wrote:
> We are running RedHat ES and have someone using our server to send a 
> small but steady stream of spam... between 4 and 5 messages per minute, 
> so they are smart enough to keep the activity fairly low profile. We've 
> already confirmed with ORDB that we are not an open relay. The messages 
> are showing up in ps -aux as:
> 
> qmailr 19774 0.0 0.0 3436 972 ? S 14:44 0:00 qmail-remote 
> remotedomain.com anonymous@... randomuser <at> remotedomain.com
> 
> and our maillogs show messages being delivered which are certainly spam:
> 
> Mar 31 15:07:02 server1 qmail: 1112299622.785136 starting delivery 
> 193807: msg 9536773 to remote randomuser@...
> 
> Since the messages are being sent by "anonymous", we are pretty sure 
> this is a vulnerable PHP script somewhere on the server that is being 
> used, but we are having the hardest time tracking down which one(s) is 
> the culprit. Is there any way to track down which domain or script was 
> used to send these messages?
> 
> Thanks!
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Yu, Jerry | 1 Apr 2005 15:10

RE: tracking down a spammer on our box


1) if it is done thru PHP/apache, wouldn't the sender be guessed as user
'apache' or 'nobody' instead of 'anonymous' on the web server, the owner
of the apache process?  
2) I'd double check the 'open relay' thiny, by sending such spam email
manually, by directly talking to the SMTP server in question, from
outside and from inside your network, if possible.

# -----Original Message-----
# From: ale-bounces@...
[mailto:ale-bounces@...] On 
# Behalf Of James P. Kinney III
# Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:51 PM
# To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
# Subject: Re: [ale] tracking down a spammer on our box
# 
# Uugh! I am not a PHP person but I suspect that the logging 
# can be turned up in apache to help with more data on linking 
# a web process to an email generation.
# 
# You should be able to set qmail to not allow a user named 
# "anonymous" to send mail.
# 
# On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:39 -0500, Ryan Williams wrote:
# > We are running RedHat ES and have someone using our server 
# to send a 
# > small but steady stream of spam... between 4 and 5 messages per 
# > minute, so they are smart enough to keep the activity fairly low 
# > profile. We've already confirmed with ORDB that we are not an open 
# > relay. The messages are showing up in ps -aux as:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |

Gmane