The Saturday 2003-11-22 at 22:19 -0500, Krikket wrote:

...

This is documented in the sdb and elsewhere.

Eh? Mind posting more info, or a link to it? I'm not sure what sdb is,

You should... SDB: SuSE Support knowledgebase It is on the SuSE web page, and also locally, at least up to SuSE 8.2. Search for CMOS or clock: * Rating (CPU) (19.06.2002) * iSeries: Time on the Linux partition is not correct (23.04.2002) * After booting the system clock is set wrong * Setting the clock to GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) -> * Your Computer Clock Shows the Wrong Time

or what you're getting at with the "two clocks" and all.

Every Personal Computer modeled after the IBM XT or AT since the eighthes has got two clocks :-) See "man hwclock", section "Clocks in a Linux System" for a good explanation of this. The subject has been talked about on this list several times. Just do a search for "keep time": |> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:54:27 +0100 |> From: Keith Powell |> Reply-To: suse-linux-e@suse.com |> To: suse-linux-e@suse.com |> Subject: [SLE] SuSE8.2 won't keep time I copy from my own answers to that thread: CR> There are two clocks on any PC. One is the hardware or CMOS clock, CR> that runs from the battery when the computer is off. The other is the CR> system time, maintained by the CPU counting timer interrupts. The CR> system time is set up from the CMOS clock during boot up. CR> CR> Now, it is possible to know how much that clock drifts (all quartz CR> clocks are accurate, but have a constant error that can be CR> compensated). When the clock is adjusted, suse Linux is set up as to CR> save the amount of correction you added and do it for you next time CR> you boot (/etc/init.d/boot.clock): CR> CR> echo -n Setting up the CMOS clock CR> test -f /etc/adjtime || echo "0.0 0 0.0" > /etc/adjtime CR> /sbin/hwclock --adjust $HWCLOCK CR> rc_status CR> /sbin/hwclock --hctosys $HWCLOCK CR> CR> CR> Then, when the system is stopped, script "/etc/init.d/halt" does this: CR> CR> if test "$HWCLOCK_ACCESS" != "no" ; then CR> if rc_active xntpd ; then CR> echo -n "Set Hardware Clock to the current System Time" CR> # write back to hardware clock and calculate adjtime CR> /sbin/hwclock --systohc $HWCLOCK CR> rc_status -v -r CR> fi CR> fi CR> CR> CR> CR> Therefore, if you manually adjust the system clock, the relation CR> between system and hardware clocks are set out of balance, and the CR> automatic adjustment will in fact set it wrong. CR> CR> The correct procedure for setting up the time (not adjusting) would CR> be: CR> CR> 1) set the system time CR> 2) copy system to hardware clock (hwclock --systohc) CR> 3) Delete /etc/adjtime

I've been having a problem with the clock in KDE running slow -- as much as 10 minutes in a 30 minute period.

Compare the clock shown by KDE with the output from the command "date" on a console: they might be different, and if they are, it is kde who is wrong. Do this before doing any other change.

I don't understand why deleting the scripts to keep the clocks in synch would be a "good thing"...

Not certainly the script, but a data file used by the boot script (actually, bu hwclock) to know the amount the clock is going fast or slow. The boot script will recreate it. A paste from another of my posts: CR> No, I don't think is the hardware, nor the software: It is the user CR> ;-) CR> CR> It is explained somewhere on the suse SDB. What I understand is - more CR> or less -, that if you change, say, your system clock one hour fast CR> (but only system time, not hardware time) when the computer is halted, CR> the halt script notes the difference of one hour, and will save on the CR> adjustment file that the clock is slow by, say, one hour every day: so CR> the boot script will make the adjustment automatically when you boot CR> up. CR> CR> That is the idea, but of course, thinking that you want to compensate CR> seconds or minutes at the most, and that you had set it to the exact CR> time and seconds the first time. CR> CR> If you - we :-) - are not doing that, it is better that we delete the CR> adjustment file to disable the automatics, at least for this once. CR> CR> Then, if you use xntp or similar, or even the radio, the adjustment CR> will be made with exactitude, and the scripts will work as expected. Finally, if nothing of this helps, there are some chipsets that have known problems keeping time with Linux. Also, suspending the computer may throw the clock way off. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

On Sunday 23 November 2003 1:50 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:

Krikket [Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:19:26 -0500 (EST)]:

PS: I do read the list, so additional copies of the answer as private mail are unnecessary and unwanted.

Phillipp, it seems we have aquired a bunch of new Suse list users , or many users have new email clients . I have recieved so many dups in the past week it is getting really annoying.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Philipp Thomas wrote:

Krikket [Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:19:26 -0500 (EST)]:

...

Eh? Mind posting more info, or a link to it?

Mind to cut down your quotes to the relevant part? The rule of thumb is, not more then what you write.

Generally, I don't mind a bit of extra quoting, as long as it's to keep context. Which seems to have been lost in this thread. So now I'm off to check my old emails for the context to put it in... (Mind like a steel sieve!) <G>

...

I'm not sure what sdb is,

SDB is the SUSE support database, available at http://portal.suse.de/sdb/en/index.html .

Ahh! Thank you.

Philipp

PS: I do read the list, so additional copies of the answer as private mail are unnecessary and unwanted.

Hrm. I'll try to remember not to CC you on replies. But we've just had that discussion on this list... I think arguing about it again is about as useful as starting a religious war. (IE: vi vs emacs) I'll leave it at saying that I ask that people CC me on the replies... Krikket

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Krikket [11-23-03 21:32]: [snip ...]

...

I'll leave it at saying that I ask that people CC me on the replies...

There is a header that you can add to your posts to accomplish that, but without, most will reply only to the list, which is expected.

FYI, the header is: Reply-To:

Can you include more than one address on a reply-to line? And is there a way to configure pine to do that in a different way for replies to different mailing lists? Krikket

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Krikket [11-23-03 22:43]: [snip ...]

...

Can you include more than one address on a reply-to line?

Have you tried?

If I can figure out a way of configuring the next question, I'll take that option. But only if that's the case. I don't have the option of running unmpteen email clients. Otherwise, as I go through 400+ messages a day on this box, it's completely impractical.

...

And is there a way to configure pine to do that in a different way for replies to different mailing lists?

Again, have you tried?

I've poked around looking for soemthing like this, yes. But never found anything.

Some of the effort must be your own. You will not learn to solve your own problems if you make no effort. You didn't even include the 'Reply-To:' header in you post.

And I could go into the evils of using "reply-to" and why it's a bad thing in general. But that's already been touched off on this list recently. Nor have I been completely convinced that it's not a bad thing for general use. But I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments. Which is one reason why I asked those questions in the first place. I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments, but I see no reason why I should research something to convience you. I'm more than willing to let things go as is -- I've been happy with the result. The additional tweak would be nice, but that's all. I don't consider it worth the time or effort to put much into it. Remember, you're the one who's annoyed by things, not me. I'm just asking for a way of minimzing your annoyance. Krikket

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Krikket [11-24-03 00:06]:

...

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Krikket [11-23-03 22:43]: [snip ...]

...

Can you include more than one address on a reply-to line?

Have you tried?

[snip ...]

...

I've poked around looking for soemthing like this, yes. But never found anything.

...

Some of the effort must be your own. You will not learn to solve your own problems if you make no effort. You didn't even include the 'Reply-To:' header in you post.

And I could go into the evils of using "reply-to" and why it's a bad thing in general. But that's already been touched off on this list recently. Nor have I been completely convinced that it's not a bad thing for general use. But I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments. Which is one reason why I asked those questions in the first place.

You should research your data. 'Reply-To:' is bad for for mail-list addresses, not to achieve personal responses to list mail.

And you shouldn't assume the other people are blowing smoke up your ass. I"m not. There are serious arguments out there as to why using "reply-to" under *any* circumstances, but *particularly* in email going to a mailing list is a bad idea. Do your own damned homework, and stop insulting me.

...

I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments, but I see no reason why I should research something to convience you.

Think again. There is no inconvenience to me. You posed the lack of means to achieve an objective but appear to be unwilling to experiment ways proposed to reach that objective.

Ah, but who wants me to reach the objective? I honestly don't care. I'm happy with it. And now that I've been given some pointers, I've started experimenting with this list only, and only this list. The Great Ghod Ghu knows that I'd be roasted alive, even if I wore asbestos undies if I were to try this on other mailing lists that are primarily inhabited by hard-core computer geeks who (like me) have been on the net since before the web was invented/designed. Why would I be roasted? Because of that counter-argument that you think doesn't exist.

...

I'm more than willing to let things go as is -- I've been happy with the result. The additional tweak would be nice, but that's all. I don't consider it worth the time or effort to put much into it.

Then there's your answer. You aren't interested.

Err, no. See above.

...

Remember, you're the one who's annoyed by things, not me. I'm just asking for a way of minimzing your annoyance.

Incorrect again. I have a procmail recipe that /dev/null's duplicates because individuals of your mindset are not interested in netiquette.

Incorrect again. I *do* care about netiquette, and I've had it pounded in to me time and time again over the years that using a reply-to in the context of anything but a private email to an individual (IE: NOT a mailing list) is a *very* bad thing to do. And personally, I agree. But if the majority of people here think that the rules of netiquette are sopmehow different here, I'll change -- if people are willing to give me the needed pointers. Krikket

The Sunday 2003-11-23 at 22:40 -0500, Krikket wrote:

Can you include more than one address on a reply-to line?

Sure!

And is there a way to configure pine to do that in a different way for replies to different mailing lists?

Yes: have a look at roles (setup, rules, roles). -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

The Monday 2003-11-24 at 20:56 -0500, Krikket wrote:

...

...

And is there a way to configure pine to do that in a different way for replies to different mailing lists?

Yes: have a look at roles (setup, rules, roles).

Very cool! I didn't know that... Thanks! (Not I'm off to <A> figure this out and <B> figure out if people on the other mailing lists that I'm on will go batsheet if I impliment this.)

Why should they? They wouldn't know... I assume you sort your mail in different folders, one for each list (this is done by procmail). Then, you only have to define a rule to activate on mail from a particular mailbox file. Simple! I've using it for years (±2)... Another freebie: a procmail recipe for suse's email lists # mail list account detected { # Add a Reply-To to this mail list, and move to the correct file. :0f * ^X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e | /usr/bin/formail -bfi "Reply-To:suse-linux-e@suse.com" :0 a: $HOME/Mail/lists/suse-linux-e # more lists skipped ... # remove CC-ed mails :0 * ^TO_suse-linux-e@suse.com $HOME/Mail/lists/in_dups # el resto de las listas :0 $HOME/Mail/lists/in_elresto } -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson