New FAH client version for newer Linux distro!

[CougTek]

And IT WORKS!

It's called the .execlient 3.24 B. No more segmentation fault and having to edit the client.cfg in order to make it work.

On a side note, Mandrake 9.1 (dubbed RC3 on their mirrors) has been released yesterday and in my case, it fixes most of the bugs that prevent me from using it on my main box. Xfre86 no longer crashes with my GeFarce 3 Ti 200. I no longer have to fake that my cable router is a proxy. The automatic network detection let me connect to the web has easily as any modern Windows OS. No annoying installation odities either when I configured it. To sum it up : better than ever...but probably still not on par with Windows 2000 / Server 2003 for a desktop OS.

Oh yeah, just one thing. It configured my keyboard weirdly. Not sure what's the layout, but it certainly isn't the one for Qu/bec (<- see).

 

[blakerwry]

Do you think I should upgrade my server to the new version?



I have 2 data partitions "/" and "/home" along with a swap and a small unused fat32 partition

if i remember correctly when going from RC1 -> RC2 I did a clean install of the / partition and left the /home partition alone... all my users dat was intact and I only had to do a few useradd's to get the users setup.

but now that I have rc2 all setup and configured I just want to upgrade my OS, but not mess up apache, SQL, PHP, etc...

Should I just stick to rc2 since I'm not having any problems, or should I go for rc3 or whatever ends up becoming final?

 

[CougTek]

I'm satisfied of RC3 (or final, as you wish) mainly because it fixes the bugs I had with RC2. I wasn't so eager to update my RC1 to RC2 since that on the machine I installed it (not the same that the one I had problems with). RC1 already ran relatively fine and only a few program updates pushed me to update the OS.

I found the installation better than on all previous release candidates. However, once the installation is done, if you don't have any problem with RC2, then it's up to you to decide if the few program updates (I didn't look at the changelog) worth the hassle of re-installing the OS.

 

[blakerwry]

It seems that RC2 has the newest version of just about everything (1 minor release behind on sendmail though)

And it's damn stable... so I don't think I'll be upgrading...



I'm having a minor problem with sendmail/postfix though... stupid relaying... it seems I can't get it to operate like my windows server does as far as relaying goes (mail going through the server has to be either to or from somebody@mydomain)... instead, sendmail/postfix, both seem to insist that I have reverse DNS setup so that a host lookup on the sender's IP results in identifying the sender's computer as being on the domain. What a bunch of hassle... Bottom line is I have no problem sending mail if I'm on the LAN, but outside the LAN I'd have to either allow relaying(bad) or setup webmail so that i can send messages.

I'm thinking of setting up webmail anyway.. so when I get around to that I can finally switchover to my linux server completely.

 

[honold]

you can use ssh port forwarding with putty to send mail using your mailserver remotely. just forward tcp port 25 on your server to localhost, and then use localhost as your smtp server.

you really send email remotely and NEED your server to send it?

the qualification doesn't have anything to do with reverse dns. if it's a static ip (or an ip range you trust) you send from regularly, you can add the ip(s) to your /etc/mail/relay-domains (e.g. 192.168.0. to get 192.168.0.1-255)

 

[blakerwry]

you can use ssh port forwarding with putty to send mail using your mailserver remotely. just forward tcp port 25 on your server to localhost, and then use localhost as your smtp server.

you really send email remotely and NEED your server to send it?

the qualification doesn't have anything to do with reverse dns. if it's a static ip (or an ip range you trust) you send from regularly, you can add the ip(s) to your /etc/mail/relay-domains (e.g. 192.168.0. to get 192.168.0.1-255)

lol, i had been trying 192.168.0.* and it was rejecting it... thanks for the tip


I run my own domain (anime-jennie.com) and I want to run my own SMTP and IMAP servers as well, I could easily use my ISP's SMTP server or purchase a 3rd party SMTP service for ~$10/month... or for something like 10/yr my registrar offers webmail for domains that it registers.

The point is I'd rather setup my own server 1 for the sake of utility, 2 for the sake of learning and 3 just to say i did.

 

[honold]

and i commend you for that.

sending mail from a random location using your own mailserver is an uncommon need, that's where my only question was stemming. if it actually matters you can do webmail, ssh forwarding, smtp auth, etc. if the server you're using somewhere else doesn't allow mail from your domain (common), you can always set the reply-to address.

in the office world the only need for remote access to send from a specific smtp server usually stems from road warrior salespeople, and that is usually solved with a vpn.

have fun

 

[blakerwry]

I wasn't neccessarily thinking about a random location... I want my gf to be able to use the mail server, and if I move and leave the server here I want to be able to have access...

I could probably use the SMTP server of the ISP and use my SMTP for recieving mail from others as well as using IMAP to retrieve my mail...

I guess I wouldn't actually have to send anything out using my SMTP server... but it seems like such a waste of a perfectly good server. :wink:

I think I'll probably switch over today, hopefully everything will go smooth... need to backup my current mails and send them over...