Re: [SLE] Kernel Woes: Comments, Please!
Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, because I don't know how to build the kernel modules, only the daemon. The makefile is incomplete, target "kernel" is commented out, and the script 'kinstall.sh' does not exist:
I saw references to to 2.2 and 2.4 kernels. I don't think the modules in the package was meant to work with a newer kernel, i.e.2.6. I did get the ppp 2.4.3 rpm built though.
I'd be more interested to know how you built the kernel modules :-)
The kernel modules are a part of the kernel tree. Right now I am running a patched 2.6.10 kernel.org kernel. If you think it is the kernel modules, I would suggest getting a generic kernel, compile it and add it to your menu and try it. Or, since you may already have the kernel sources installed, you could maybe do some diff checks in /usr/src/linux/drivers/net of the kernel that doesn't work and the older one that does.
P.S.: Your mail server doesn't like me.
<Joe_Morris@ntm.org>: host mxpool2.postoffice.net[165.212.65.113] said: 550 Mail from 213.94.7.77 refused. ?Please refer to http://www.dnsbl.us.sorbs.net/faq/ for an explanation. (in reply to RCPT TO command) Sorry, it is an outsourced company. I know what you are going through, I fought that same kind of thing when I was still in the Philippines. Nothing I can do. -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Registered Linux user 231871
The Thursday 2005-01-20 at 22:23 -0600, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, because I don't know how to build the kernel modules, only the daemon. The makefile is incomplete, target "kernel" is commented out, and the script 'kinstall.sh' does not exist:
I saw references to to 2.2 and 2.4 kernels. I don't think the modules in the package was meant to work with a newer kernel, i.e.2.6. I did get the ppp 2.4.3 rpm built though.
That's possible... this is what the 'README.linux' file says: 2. Installation --------------- 2.1 Kernel driver Assuming you are running a recent 2.2 or 2.4 (or later) series kernel, the kernel source code will contain an up-to-date kernel PPP driver. If the PPP driver was included in your kernel configuration when your kernel was built, then you only need to install the user-level programs. Otherwise you will need to get the source tree for your kernel version, configure it with PPP included, and recompile. Most Linux distribution vendors ship kernels with PPP included in the configuration.
I'd be more interested to know how you built the kernel modules :-) The kernel modules are a part of the kernel tree. Right now I am running a patched 2.6.10 kernel.org kernel. If you think it is the kernel modules, I would suggest getting a generic kernel, compile it and add it to your menu and try it. Or, since you may already have the kernel sources installed, you could maybe do some diff checks in /usr/src/linux/drivers/net of the kernel that doesn't work and the older one that does.
I'll have a look.
P.S.: Your mail server doesn't like me.
<Joe_Morris@ntm.org>: host mxpool2.postoffice.net[165.212.65.113] said: 550 Mail from 213.94.7.77 refused. ?Please refer to http://www.dnsbl.us.sorbs.net/faq/ for an explanation. (in reply to RCPT TO command) Sorry, it is an outsourced company. I know what you are going through, I fought that same kind of thing when I was still in the Philippines. Nothing I can do.
Ok, but then it makes me very dificult to answer you off list (your previous email was off-list). -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
Joe Morris (NTM wrote:
P.S.: Your mail server doesn't like me.
<Joe_Morris@ntm.org>: host mxpool2.postoffice.net[165.212.65.113] said: 550 Mail from 213.94.7.77 refused. ?Please refer to http://www.dnsbl.us.sorbs.net/faq/ for an explanation. (in reply to RCPT TO command) Sorry, it is an outsourced company. I know what you are going through, I fought that same kind of thing when I was still in the Philippines. Nothing I can do.
Carlos, are you using Tiscalis relay when you email people? SORBS is listing 213.94.7.77 as a dial-up address, and it's not completely unreasonable to refuse your email if it's sent directly from your dial-up line. A little harsh yes, but not completely unreasonable. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/freetrial - sign up for your free 30-day trial now!
The Saturday 2005-01-22 at 09:37 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos, are you using Tiscalis relay when you email people? SORBS is listing 213.94.7.77 as a dial-up address, and it's not completely unreasonable to refuse your email if it's sent directly from your dial-up line. A little harsh yes, but not completely unreasonable.
I can not set up a fixed relay for many reasons, one of them is that I don't always use the same provider. Tiscali does verification based on the sender IP, so if I connect from another provider, I can not send. To send I have to edit the transport file each time. So, I use postfix to send directly. That also gives me more control and confirmation of receipt, which a relay doesn't. As to the real problem at hand, I'm studying it and doing tests. Perhaps tomorrow or the day after I'll have more info. Now I'm going to sleep :-) [rant start] I consider blocking ranges of IPs just because they are dynamic unfair. True, spammers use them. But also much more bona fide people than spammers use dynamic addresses. Condemning us all because there are some rotten fruits in the same bag is as unfair as imprisoning a bunch of people because one of them committed some kind of crime, but the exact culprit can not be determined. And the exact culprit can be got, with a court order, in Spain. The providers, by law, keep a list of each connection with the phone number used to connect each time. Spammers can be known. It only needs determination on the part of the law enforcing establishment, politics, police, judges, etc, to get at them. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
participants (3)
-
Carlos E. R. -
Joe Morris (NTM) -
Per Jessen