I'm sorry you couldn't get LDAP going. I am just finishing up implementation here and it looks pretty sweet - we've got Samba, Apache, and Linux all using the same OpenLDAP database, and we are going to integrate HP-UX as well if possible. This allows us to have digitally signed work orders and help desk trouble tickets without setting up a bunch of crypto stuff that the users would invariably screw up due to lack of crypto knowledge.
Your experience highlights the problem with the technology - it's new, raw, fast-moving, and there is a tremendous amount of conflicting and poorly organized documentation that can be physically painful to try to sort out.
I never found any "how to" that relected the current state of the art - I found how-tos for the current version of samba and an old version of OpenLDAP, or the current OpenLDAP and older samba, etc. ad nauseum, but nothing totally up-to-date. You have to be a bona-fide hacker to get it going at this point in a real production environment.
A couple of small examples: Red Hat 7.3- doesn't ship LDAP-enabled RPMs, you have to unroll their source and modify the specfile, then roll your own samba-ldap.rpms, or give up the advantages of RPM package management. More subtly, the modified IDEALX script they ship for migration from/etc/group to OpenLDAP has a subtle flaw - it takes the members of the group, adds them to a list that also contains the name of the group itself, then they strip out all duplicates with a CASE-INSENSITIVE uniq function. This means that when you have a group ADMIN that contains a user named admin, the user is silently, secretly removed from the group during your migration process. There are other, similar subtle traps as well, that you really have to be a hacker to catch on to.
As for your conundrum:
no adequate support, help or whatever information about what to do when you have slapd running, but no data in there yet.
You write scripts (using perl (or awk if you have uberhacker chops)) to turn your existing data into LDIF format as defined by your schema files (if slapd runs you have schema files) turn slapd off, and use the slapadd program to batch-load your LDIFs into the database. Then turn slapd back on again, put nss_ldap in your name service switch configuration and pam_ldap in your pluggable authentication modules configuration, and you are up and running.
You don't use ldapadd on the running database because it's insufferably slow. LDAP databases are optimized for READ access not WRITE access which makes sense if you think about it. Use slapadd with the daemon turned off instead.
And don't put your root and daemon accounts into LDAP. Have them in the local/etc/passwd with MD5 shadow passwords enabled, so that you can function temporarily if you somehow hose your LDAP infrastructure (if you never make mistakes, you're not doing anything innovative). This also allows you to have separate root passwords on your machines (which is wise) but requires you to have a slightly more complex PAM and NSS configuration.
Integrating samba gets harder. You have to learn how to protect the database, which is still a "trail of errors" technique even if you know backus-naur, but it's essential because the MS-windows password hashes are trivially crackable.
My point is COBOL is alive and kicking today and many businesses still use it.
I hear you, but my point is that it's not a good career choice, nor is it an appropriate course requirement in an institute of higher learning. Most universities do not require COBOL - I haven't checked, but I'll bet no truly respected College of Computer Science (Stanford, MIT, UD, etc) does. Why? Because it would be a disservice to the students to require COBOL, when they could be spending their time and $$$ learning C. Let COBOL be an elective, and persons like yourself can revel in it to your hearts' content.
The orginal poster probably can't up and transfer in the middle of a semester, and thus will want to follow some of the more constructive suggestions that others have made (such as, implement the same programs in COBOL, VB, and C++ and then benchmark them. That'd be a good learning method). But somebody had to point out that it's ludicrous for a school to require COBOL.
If you want to acquire a dead language, I recommend Classical Latin.
I didn't say Eiffel, Lisp or Icon should be required, I said a good school should offer courses in some of the more esoteric languages, and gave those as an example (though Eiffel's not really esoteric, just little-known).
And what I was trying to say about VB was that it should be very easy to learn enough to pass an intro-level college course. I think the point of VB is to be easy to learn and use, neh?
But thanks for the.Net comments, I have not investigated.Net yet. (I've been figuring I'll give it some time to mature first, and see if it has any staying power.)
You are certainly right that there are more jobs available for VB jocks than Icon afficianados.
I went to www.jobsearch.com (which is a website I have NEVER visited before, AFAIK, I just figured the name would work and it did) and did some simple searches in their "help wanted" database.
So, COBOL's obviously the language to choose for a healthy career, right? It's DEAD, Jim. The only companies that use it will make you sit in a room with no windows and wear a tie. C'mon, you know it's true.
Incidentally, I agree with almost everything else you said. But don't take it personally.
Any place that considers COBOL a requirement, and Visual Basic worth spending course time on, is seriously out of touch with both the academic and business worlds.
Most of the giant COBOL shops killed off their COBOL dependency during the Y2K fixup. COBOL programmers with 20 years of experience are a dime a dozen now. Most people I know with COBOL experience don't even bother putting it on their resume.
Visual Basic is so trivially easy to master that it hardly requires a college course - a good manual and an on-line or CD tutorial should have you up to speed in two weeks or less.
A school with a good program would be requiring C, and offering perl, C++, Java, python, and some more esoteric languages like Eiffel, Lisp, Icon, or such.
Given no other choice, I'd skimp on the COBOL and practice the VB; you can use VB at home when you get a job as a Salesdroid, or use it with MSWindows in a mid-level management position.
If you ignore enough details, interpreted languages like perl and gawk are similar to OSes. Those that are integrated with a programming environment, even more so; the RSTS/E Basic environment was a language that worked as an OS. VAX/VMS included interpreted DCL, and thus was an OS that worked as a language.
However, compiled languages are fundamentally dissimilar to OSes, because the compiler is not needed to run the program once it's compiled. Your OS is not as easily dispensed with!
Why don't I have a right to pass on what's mine to somebody else?
While you are alive, you have the right to give or sell what's yours to others.
When you are dead, you have no rights in the living world. None. Some third party can strongarm victims in your name, but that has nothing to do with any "rights" imbued in your mouldering corpse. This issue is slightly muddied by inheritance law, until you remember all inheritance law is primarily concerned with the rights and properties of the living, because the state has a vested interest in allocation of taxable assets.
When you engage in speech, or publishing, you release an image from your mind (something that's yours) to others (whoever's listening or reading). You have gifted them with knowledge, and although that knowledge may be worthless, it is now available to the recipient to do with as that person wills.
You need to grasp the fundamental difference between property, which exists in a single instance (like a physical CD-ROM) and communication, which can be replicated without diminishment of the source (like a picture that can be copied, or a speech that can be transcripted). Consider Thomas Jefferson's remarks on the subject; if I light your candle with mine, you are illuminated, but my own light is not extinguished.
My reference to "the divine right of kings" is apropos, as you have demonstrated, because most people (like yourself) have been brainwashed into thinking they have a right to force others behavior, all because of an imaginary right to own and inherit that which is essentially and naturally free - human thought and communication.
Your comments about the current regime in the US may be correct, but they have nothing to do with anyone's rights- they have to do with the ability of powerful families to hoard power and escape punishment. Case in point: Bush is apparently a militarydeserter, which is normally a punishable crime that would invalidate ones' ability to hold public office. There are no "rights" being exercised here, it's plain old corruption at work.
Just because someone can get away with something doesn't mean they have a right to do so. If your dead ancestor wrote down an idea, or painted a picture, you don't have a right to forcibly prevent me from writing down the same idea.
...does it extend to everything I own, including the clothes on my back? I ask because you don't seem to make any distinction.
I hope the forgoing has made the distinction clear. If you give someone your clothes, you don't have them any more. If you compose a poem, it is not erased from your memory if others hear it, nor does it evaporate when they repeat it, or elaborate on it, or make a movie based on it.
I have the right to pass on my hard work and the profits from it to my family.
No, you don't . You have the ability under current law to gift certain things to your heirs. You do not have a categorical "right", either legally or morally, to pass on everything you've achieved. This is the foundation of our culture, that we tossed out the right of the British King to govern us, simply because his ancestors worked hard (don't think Edward the Hammer was a slacker, 'cause he could kick your ass) and imposed their will on our ancestors.
Your claims to "rights" are no more real than the "divine right of kings" which was once unquestioned throughout the world.
Your kids will be better, stronger people if you teach them to provide for themselves, instead of trying to provide everything for them by restricting the activities of everyone else.
Evolve. This isn't the 12th century, regardless of what John Ashcroft would have you believe.
According to the Bugtraq post, the exploit GOBBLES posted is not related to those supposedly funded by the RIAA, and was supplied only to prove that GOBBLES is not bluffing.
Keep in mind that GOBBLES has an odd sense of humor, and a penchant for disinformation, and no great reputation for being socially responsible. It is highly unlikely that GOBBLES would be able to obtain employment from the RIAA.
Given all that, GOBBLES has a flair for showmanship - the pseudo-russian posts to Bugtraq in 2001 are attention-grabbers, that made GOBBLES visible in the security community.
This new bit of hyper-FUD will no doubt cause all the P2P coders to take a harder look at their programming, and if the worms actually exist the end result will be stronger MP3 player software.
Minor correction to your definition of species
on
Finding Every Species
·
· Score: 2
I get your point, but:
In mammals, the ability to produce fertile offspring generally draws the boundaries between species.
...it's not whether they are able to crossbreed, it's whether they do crossbreed in the wild.
For example, the Florida Panther used to be considered a separate species due to distinct phenotype and geographic isolation. Once the species was down to a single known individual, other panther species were introduced to the area as breeding partners (in an attempt to salvage as much of the genotype as possible).
To make matters even more confusing, mules are occasionally fertile; although they are sterile in general, individual exceptions have been reported to occur.
I suspect you know all this and merely mistyped, but I'm pointing it out for those who don't.
...name, ncientific name (the latin? stuff), physical Description...
To answer the question implied by your question mark, no, it's not really latin. Nothing an ancient Roman would understand, at least.
Linnean nomenclature is what historians might call dog-latin, that is, a corrupt dialect or pidgin at least partially derived from latin roots.
In many cases names are pseudo-latinized names of the discoverer's heroes, or relatives, or similar. Gary Larsen has a bird louse named after him, for example.
It's considered poor taste to name a species after yourself, and respectable scientists don't do it. But there has been a noticeable breakdown in the culture of science in the last decade or so, so I think you can expect to see more species named after their discoverers, and probably sponsoring corporations, too.
Seriously, if you do it right, you won't think about the furniture, the job, the music, etc. And you won't hear the phone ringing. And you won't have any trouble sleeping, either. Hell, you won't notice if the building burns down!
If you aren't getting regular sex, that's the problem. If you are, you aren't paying enough attention to doing it right.
You'll know you are doing it right when you find yourself incapable of coherent thought for at least 15 minutes after you're done.
It looks like the old-school Mercedes Unimog, only at higher cost, less manueverability, less ground clearance, less flexibility, and crappy fuel economy... A 1968 Mog with a 6-cylinder diesel engine can pull a 16-ton howitzer.
Sendmail is an MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) and thus does not need or want to speak POP3. In Red Hat (at least, versions up to 7.3) you need the ipop3d daemon for pop3.
However, all POP protocols are brain-dead and lame. You should be using IMAP, which is supported by all decent end-user mailers (MUAs, or Mail User Agents) as well as by Microsoft's latest MUAs.
In v5-7.3 RedHats, type ntsysv from the command line and turn on IMAP (or, better yet, IMAPS, if you comprendhez crypto) and SENDMAIL in the runlevel of your preference (I recommend 3, since Xwindows is bloated and unreliable).
If you want an exchange server clone (NOTE: only really useful if you run Outlook, the world's absolute worst MUA for security and reliability, which runs only on proprietary opsystems that have high hardware requirements) use HP Openmail. Or wait for Miguel de Icaza to write something better.
One thing to remember, regardless of what MTA you use, it should NOT relay Email from any address other than 127.0.0.1 unless you specifically configure in the addresses/domains you want to relay from. So you will need to edit/etc/mail/sendmail.mc, which contains useful comments. This is not a bug - MTAs that relay without requiring any user configuration are BROKEN.
I ran 400 users on redhat5.2+sendmail+ipop3d server and win98+pegasus clients, the clients popped the mail server every 7 seconds, and the server was a pentium 133 with four ethernet cards on it. No performance problems in our real-world shop.
For my users, reliability + performance = ability to generate profit = paychecks for workers. Features that cannot be obtained without sacrificing reliability or price/performance will not be implemented, because the goal is to earn enough to feed the kiddies, not to be 1337.
All that being said, I recommend you install Postfix rather than sendmail. I use sendmail because I already know how to do it, and it works with OpenLDAP. I don't think you fit the profile.
Works for more people than you might think... the rpm-based distros usually have sendmail configured to be reasonably useful right out of the box.
To be fair, though, I have been running sendmail for almost ten years and it is definitely a bitch to configure for large non-standard environments. And what "large" computing environment is really "standard" if you look at it closely? M4 (sendmail.mc) is the best thing that ever happened to sendmail.
That's supposed to be something the Great Khan of the Golden Horde said, although it may be a purely apocryphal tale. Certainly the screenwriters for "Conan" didn't come up with it.
How dare you, even in your ignorance, attempt to make this a racial issue!
I guess I'm just naturally daring.
The poster is claiming someone is entitled by birthright to special treatment - despite inability to compete in a free market.
Either it's racism or nationlism, but either way it's pure bigotry. Employment in a capitalist economy is not dependent on where you were born, or what color you are, it's based on raw market survivability. Learn to optimise your strengths and compensate for your weaknesses, or you will have to live on handouts.
A better plan....
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...might be to *use* the muscle power a slab of steak represents, to perform work.
But obviously this is an important step towards developing Matrix pods. Full steam ahead, and pass the soylent yellow!
Does it seem like every IT person in America is loosing their jobs to people in india now?
No, only the IT people who are illiterate are "loosing" their jobs. People who can spell in their own native language rarely have such problems.
It is bad enough everyone in Mexico is stealing our work, now India.
Yawn yawn. Yeah, fair competition always seems to be "stealing" when it's brown people doing it.
I think they need to put Tarrifs on all incoming code to America or somthing,
Sure, that's a better solution than learning how to do better work! Let's subsidize overpaid incompetence! It worked for the air traffic controllers, right?
I know it sounds bad, we lost our jobs because of stuff like NAFTA, now it is happening with IT too.
I don't know anyone who lost their job because of NAFTA. I know dozens of people who lost their jobs in the Bush Economic Miracle, though.
I also hear of companies paying for scholarships by using students code in their programs.
How dare those students perform valuable work when they should be drinking and sleeping around! I bet some of them are brown foreigners too.
We are letting people take advantage of us, the GNU/GPL are making us more vulerable to stolen code, how can we profit if people are stealing our work out from under out feet?
Who is we kemosabe? Those who are willing to work, and have some skill, don't need the Federal Bureau of Foreigner Oppression to protect their jobs. All they need is an economy that's not totally hosed.
I realize that "you have to sacrifice security to gain flexibility" is dogma around here, but I have to disagree.
You *can* sacrifice security to gain something else, but this is typically the result of bad analysis or bad design. Or ludicrous deadlines.
Take SSH for example. It has all the useability of telnet, and rsh, and rlogin. All rolled into one! That's pretty flexible. Yet far more secure than any of the things it replaces, because it was intelligently designed. Implementation is a cakewalk, too. Any idiot can install a properly packaged SSH client, although some of the servers are *not* properly packaged.
Ultimate security is a target, not an attainable goal. Really good software approaches the target, less superlative software falls short.
But in Microsoft's case, they were always a PC company - designing products for unconnected, personal computers - so there was no goal of security at all! Until the Internet community forced them into a connected marketplace. It's no wonder they don't like us netizens, we made their work hard and their world dangerous.
Well, obviously you are out of touch. Here in the Grand Old Party, we know that the HEATHEN CHINEE are the source of all our problems!
For example, clearly the problems with the economy are due to Clinton's pandering to the Chinese, as so ably and accurately documented in the conservative media.
Another example is anti-Jesus candidate Al Gore, who is actually controlled by demon-worshiping chinese "bhuddists". Gore's treasonous challenge to the electoral process was clearly at the behest of his chinese puppeteers! This is also extremely well documented in the well-written and accurate conservative media.
And anyone who says different is clearly in the pay of New York Jewish Liberals.
Try the Virtually Indestructible Keyboard. The advertising is a bit overblown, but my kids played tug-o-war with mine while I was in my morning coma and it survived. Didn't even get any stretch marks... I think if one of them had been pulling on the cord it would have ripped out, but the keyboard itself is very tough.
Oh, and it is definitely soup-proof... hot soup at that.
Slashdot Mirror
Your experience highlights the problem with the technology - it's new, raw, fast-moving, and there is a tremendous amount of conflicting and poorly organized documentation that can be physically painful to try to sort out.
I never found any "how to" that relected the current state of the art - I found how-tos for the current version of samba and an old version of OpenLDAP, or the current OpenLDAP and older samba, etc. ad nauseum, but nothing totally up-to-date. You have to be a bona-fide hacker to get it going at this point in a real production environment.
A couple of small examples: Red Hat 7.3- doesn't ship LDAP-enabled RPMs, you have to unroll their source and modify the specfile, then roll your own samba-ldap
As for your conundrum: You write scripts (using perl (or awk if you have uberhacker chops)) to turn your existing data into LDIF format as defined by your schema files (if slapd runs you have schema files) turn slapd off, and use the slapadd program to batch-load your LDIFs into the database. Then turn slapd back on again, put nss_ldap in your name service switch configuration and pam_ldap in your pluggable authentication modules configuration, and you are up and running.
You don't use ldapadd on the running database because it's insufferably slow. LDAP databases are optimized for READ access not WRITE access which makes sense if you think about it. Use slapadd with the daemon turned off instead.
And don't put your root and daemon accounts into LDAP. Have them in the local
Integrating samba gets harder. You have to learn how to protect the database, which is still a "trail of errors" technique even if you know backus-naur, but it's essential because the MS-windows password hashes are trivially crackable.
The orginal poster probably can't up and transfer in the middle of a semester, and thus will want to follow some of the more constructive suggestions that others have made (such as, implement the same programs in COBOL, VB, and C++ and then benchmark them. That'd be a good learning method). But somebody had to point out that it's ludicrous for a school to require COBOL.
If you want to acquire a dead language, I recommend Classical Latin.
I didn't say Eiffel, Lisp or Icon should be required, I said a good school should offer courses in some of the more esoteric languages, and gave those as an example (though Eiffel's not really esoteric, just little-known).
.Net comments, I have not investigated .Net yet. (I've been figuring I'll give it some time to mature first, and see if it has any staying power.)
And what I was trying to say about VB was that it should be very easy to learn enough to pass an intro-level college course. I think the point of VB is to be easy to learn and use, neh?
But thanks for the
You are certainly right that there are more jobs available for VB jocks than Icon afficianados.
I went to www.jobsearch.com (which is a website I have NEVER visited before, AFAIK, I just figured the name would work and it did) and did some simple searches in their "help wanted" database.
COBOL -- 242 hits
JAVA -- 1183 hits
" c program" -- 1740 hits
So, COBOL's obviously the language to choose for a healthy career, right? It's DEAD, Jim. The only companies that use it will make you sit in a room with no windows and wear a tie. C'mon, you know it's true.
Incidentally, I agree with almost everything else you said. But don't take it personally.
Any place that considers COBOL a requirement, and Visual Basic worth spending course time on, is seriously out of touch with both the academic and business worlds.
Most of the giant COBOL shops killed off their COBOL dependency during the Y2K fixup. COBOL programmers with 20 years of experience are a dime a dozen now. Most people I know with COBOL experience don't even bother putting it on their resume.
Visual Basic is so trivially easy to master that it hardly requires a college course - a good manual and an on-line or CD tutorial should have you up to speed in two weeks or less.
A school with a good program would be requiring C, and offering perl, C++, Java, python, and some more esoteric languages like Eiffel, Lisp, Icon, or such.
Given no other choice, I'd skimp on the COBOL and practice the VB; you can use VB at home when you get a job as a Salesdroid, or use it with MSWindows in a mid-level management position.
If you ignore enough details, interpreted languages like perl and gawk are similar to OSes. Those that are integrated with a programming environment, even more so; the RSTS/E Basic environment was a language that worked as an OS. VAX/VMS included interpreted DCL, and thus was an OS that worked as a language.
However, compiled languages are fundamentally dissimilar to OSes, because the compiler is not needed to run the program once it's compiled. Your OS is not as easily dispensed with!
When you are dead, you have no rights in the living world. None. Some third party can strongarm victims in your name, but that has nothing to do with any "rights" imbued in your mouldering corpse. This issue is slightly muddied by inheritance law, until you remember all inheritance law is primarily concerned with the rights and properties of the living, because the state has a vested interest in allocation of taxable assets.
When you engage in speech, or publishing, you release an image from your mind (something that's yours) to others (whoever's listening or reading). You have gifted them with knowledge, and although that knowledge may be worthless, it is now available to the recipient to do with as that person wills.
You need to grasp the fundamental difference between property, which exists in a single instance (like a physical CD-ROM) and communication, which can be replicated without diminishment of the source (like a picture that can be copied, or a speech that can be transcripted). Consider Thomas Jefferson's remarks on the subject; if I light your candle with mine, you are illuminated, but my own light is not extinguished.
My reference to "the divine right of kings" is apropos, as you have demonstrated, because most people (like yourself) have been brainwashed into thinking they have a right to force others behavior, all because of an imaginary right to own and inherit that which is essentially and naturally free - human thought and communication.
Your comments about the current regime in the US may be correct, but they have nothing to do with anyone's rights- they have to do with the ability of powerful families to hoard power and escape punishment. Case in point: Bush is apparently a military deserter, which is normally a punishable crime that would invalidate ones' ability to hold public office. There are no "rights" being exercised here, it's plain old corruption at work.
Just because someone can get away with something doesn't mean they have a right to do so. If your dead ancestor wrote down an idea, or painted a picture, you don't have a right to forcibly prevent me from writing down the same idea.
I hope the forgoing has made the distinction clear. If you give someone your clothes, you don't have them any more. If you compose a poem, it is not erased from your memory if others hear it, nor does it evaporate when they repeat it, or elaborate on it, or make a movie based on it.Are you accusing me of raising "red herrings"?
Pot, meet kettle.
Your claims to "rights" are no more real than the "divine right of kings" which was once unquestioned throughout the world.
Your kids will be better, stronger people if you teach them to provide for themselves, instead of trying to provide everything for them by restricting the activities of everyone else.
Evolve. This isn't the 12th century, regardless of what John Ashcroft would have you believe.
According to the Bugtraq post, the exploit GOBBLES posted is not related to those supposedly funded by the RIAA, and was supplied only to prove that GOBBLES is not bluffing.
Keep in mind that GOBBLES has an odd sense of humor, and a penchant for disinformation, and no great reputation for being socially responsible. It is highly unlikely that GOBBLES would be able to obtain employment from the RIAA.
Given all that, GOBBLES has a flair for showmanship - the pseudo-russian posts to Bugtraq in 2001 are attention-grabbers, that made GOBBLES visible in the security community.
This new bit of hyper-FUD will no doubt cause all the P2P coders to take a harder look at their programming, and if the worms actually exist the end result will be stronger MP3 player software.
For example, the Florida Panther used to be considered a separate species due to distinct phenotype and geographic isolation. Once the species was down to a single known individual, other panther species were introduced to the area as breeding partners (in an attempt to salvage as much of the genotype as possible).
To make matters even more confusing, mules are occasionally fertile; although they are sterile in general, individual exceptions have been reported to occur.
I suspect you know all this and merely mistyped, but I'm pointing it out for those who don't.
Linnean nomenclature is what historians might call dog-latin, that is, a corrupt dialect or pidgin at least partially derived from latin roots. In many cases names are pseudo-latinized names of the discoverer's heroes, or relatives, or similar. Gary Larsen has a bird louse named after him, for example.
It's considered poor taste to name a species after yourself, and respectable scientists don't do it. But there has been a noticeable breakdown in the culture of science in the last decade or so, so I think you can expect to see more species named after their discoverers, and probably sponsoring corporations, too.
Seriously, if you do it right, you won't think about the furniture, the job, the music, etc. And you won't hear the phone ringing. And you won't have any trouble sleeping, either. Hell, you won't notice if the building burns down!
If you aren't getting regular sex, that's the problem. If you are, you aren't paying enough attention to doing it right.
You'll know you are doing it right when you find yourself incapable of coherent thought for at least 15 minutes after you're done.
It looks like the old-school Mercedes Unimog, only at higher cost, less manueverability, less ground clearance, less flexibility, and crappy fuel economy... A 1968 Mog with a 6-cylinder diesel engine can pull a 16-ton howitzer.
On the other hand, it might be competitive with the new reconstituted Unimog.
Sendmail is an MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) and thus does not need or want to speak POP3. In Red Hat (at least, versions up to 7.3) you need the ipop3d daemon for pop3.
/etc/mail/sendmail.mc, which contains useful comments. This is not a bug - MTAs that relay without requiring any user configuration are BROKEN.
However, all POP protocols are brain-dead and lame. You should be using IMAP, which is supported by all decent end-user mailers (MUAs, or Mail User Agents) as well as by Microsoft's latest MUAs.
In v5-7.3 RedHats, type ntsysv from the command line and turn on IMAP (or, better yet, IMAPS, if you comprendhez crypto) and SENDMAIL in the runlevel of your preference (I recommend 3, since Xwindows is bloated and unreliable).
If you want an exchange server clone (NOTE: only really useful if you run Outlook, the world's absolute worst MUA for security and reliability, which runs only on proprietary opsystems that have high hardware requirements) use HP Openmail. Or wait for Miguel de Icaza to write something better.
One thing to remember, regardless of what MTA you use, it should NOT relay Email from any address other than 127.0.0.1 unless you specifically configure in the addresses/domains you want to relay from. So you will need to edit
I ran 400 users on redhat5.2+sendmail+ipop3d server and win98+pegasus clients, the clients popped the mail server every 7 seconds, and the server was a pentium 133 with four ethernet cards on it. No performance problems in our real-world shop.
For my users, reliability + performance = ability to generate profit = paychecks for workers. Features that cannot be obtained without sacrificing reliability or price/performance will not be implemented, because the goal is to earn enough to feed the kiddies, not to be 1337.
All that being said, I recommend you install Postfix rather than sendmail. I use sendmail because I already know how to do it, and it works with OpenLDAP. I don't think you fit the profile.
Works for more people than you might think... the rpm-based distros usually have sendmail configured to be reasonably useful right out of the box.
To be fair, though, I have been running sendmail for almost ten years and it is definitely a bitch to configure for large non-standard environments. And what "large" computing environment is really "standard" if you look at it closely? M4 (sendmail.mc) is the best thing that ever happened to sendmail.
That's supposed to be something the Great Khan of the Golden Horde said, although it may be a purely apocryphal tale. Certainly the screenwriters for "Conan" didn't come up with it.
The poster is claiming someone is entitled by birthright to special treatment - despite inability to compete in a free market.
Either it's racism or nationlism, but either way it's pure bigotry. Employment in a capitalist economy is not dependent on where you were born, or what color you are, it's based on raw market survivability. Learn to optimise your strengths and compensate for your weaknesses, or you will have to live on handouts.
...might be to *use* the muscle power a slab of steak represents, to perform work.
But obviously this is an important step towards developing Matrix pods. Full steam ahead, and pass the soylent yellow!
Yawn yawn. Yeah, fair competition always seems to be "stealing" when it's brown people doing it.Sure, that's a better solution than learning how to do better work! Let's subsidize overpaid incompetence! It worked for the air traffic controllers, right?I don't know anyone who lost their job because of NAFTA. I know dozens of people who lost their jobs in the Bush Economic Miracle, though.How dare those students perform valuable work when they should be drinking and sleeping around! I bet some of them are brown foreigners too. Who is we kemosabe?
Those who are willing to work, and have some skill, don't need the Federal Bureau of Foreigner Oppression to protect their jobs. All they need is an economy that's not totally hosed.
I realize that "you have to sacrifice security to gain flexibility" is dogma around here, but I have to disagree.
You *can* sacrifice security to gain something else, but this is typically the result of bad analysis or bad design. Or ludicrous deadlines.
Take SSH for example. It has all the useability of telnet, and rsh, and rlogin. All rolled into one! That's pretty flexible. Yet far more secure than any of the things it replaces, because it was intelligently designed. Implementation is a cakewalk, too. Any idiot can install a properly packaged SSH client, although some of the servers are *not* properly packaged.
Ultimate security is a target, not an attainable goal. Really good software approaches the target, less superlative software falls short.
But in Microsoft's case, they were always a PC company - designing products for unconnected, personal computers - so there was no goal of security at all! Until the Internet community forced them into a connected marketplace. It's no wonder they don't like us netizens, we made their work hard and their world dangerous.
Um, look, missiles have WARHEADS, which are those explodey things? Remember those?
Multi-purpose boosters can be outfitted with warheads, at which point they become missiles.
You don't call the Soyuz a missile, and it's on the same booster as a Soviet nuke... can we try for some consistency, or is that too much to ask?
Well, obviously you are out of touch. Here in the Grand Old Party, we know that the HEATHEN CHINEE are the source of all our problems!
For example, clearly the problems with the economy are due to Clinton's pandering to the Chinese, as so ably and accurately documented in the conservative media.
Another example is anti-Jesus candidate Al Gore, who is actually controlled by demon-worshiping chinese "bhuddists". Gore's treasonous challenge to the electoral process was clearly at the behest of his chinese puppeteers! This is also extremely well documented in the well-written and accurate conservative media.
And anyone who says different is clearly in the pay of New York Jewish Liberals.
All hail Saint Reagan!
Thank you.
Try the Virtually Indestructible Keyboard. The advertising is a bit overblown, but my kids played tug-o-war with mine while I was in my morning coma and it survived. Didn't even get any stretch marks... I think if one of them had been pulling on the cord it would have ripped out, but the keyboard itself is very tough.
Oh, and it is definitely soup-proof... hot soup at that.