Searching \ for '[EE]you can build & host your own web at home, wit' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=you+can+build+host
Search entire site for: 'you can build & host your own web at home, wit'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]you can build & host your own web at home, wit'
2007\10\03@110501 by nice dragon

picon face
With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.

Here is some example(three web site hosted in one old machine with only 256M RAM, web+Ftp+email service up and running for 6 month without a re-boot as of today):

http://www.augroups.selfip.com/

http://www.auelectronics.selfip.com/

http://www.handcraft.selfip.com/

In the mean time, you don't have to register your own web site and pay the annual fee. The maintain of the servers and machine is also very few and simple.

Once you got Internet at home, you basically got everything (email server, ftp server, web server, video stream if you want, and more).


     ____________________________________________________________________________________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658

2007\10\03@113849 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
nice dragon wrote:

> With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home
> with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.

FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)

Gerhard

2007\10\03@114604 by Info

flavicon
face
> nice dragon wrote:
>
>> With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home
>> with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
>
> FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)
>
> Gerhard

How? And don't you need some redundency for email, like another
backup-email server?

2007\10\03@115313 by Alanis, Cristo jesus n/a

flavicon
face
Yup, the only cost could be a nic domain to forward traffic to the host,
and electric, phone/cable bills, etc..

And the best of all, no viruses...

Cristo Alanis
Design Engineer
Tyco Electronics


> {Original Message removed}

2007\10\03@115823 by Paul Anderson

face picon face
On 10/3/07, Gerhard Fiedler <spam_OUTlistsTakeThisOuTspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> nice dragon wrote:
>
> > With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home
> > with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
>
> FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)
>
>
In my experience, Linux is easier to implement that with, and free :)

--
Paul Anderson
VE6HOP
.....wackyvorlonKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com
http://www.oldschoolhacker.com
"May the electromotive force be with you."

2007\10\03@123506 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Info wrote:

>>> With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at
>>> home with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
>>
>> FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)
>
> How?

What do you want to know? How to set up http, ftp, smtp services? How to
install a POP/IMAP mail server?

> And don't you need some redundency for email, like another backup-email
> server?

That's another story. Can be done with both, but I don't think the OP did
mean to address redundancy. You may also need another link for that, in
another location with a different provider getting his feed through a
different route, depending on what kind of redundancy you're talking about.

Gerhard

2007\10\03@123540 by Alanis, Cristo jesus n/a

flavicon
face
At one time I had a linux server with only web,ssl,ssh,ftp on a Pentium
with only 32Mb ram trough a dsl line, the main advantage is that it
doesn't requiere to much computer power to implement.

Cristo Alanis
Design Engineer
Tyco Electronics



> {Original Message removed}

2007\10\03@124223 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Most residential service blocks port 25 (SMTP) incoming. You can't
really do email over a home connection, nor can I understand why you
would seriously want to.
--
Martin K

Info wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\03@131746 by alan smith

picon face
and..this is EE for what reason?

but... I've done it both ways....having a linux machine sitting there doing email and web serving, and when it crashes...because eventually everything does (hardware failures, etc) you have to go and to it again.  And even tho running a firewall, the hackers still got in...found they were using it to just crunch some password hacking program.  

So....I gave up on it.  For $6/year, I can have my stuff hosted on a '5-nines' machine, never worry about crashing, etc. Single (or 2?) email addresses, but since they are forwards, not a big deal.  My 'personal' Email costs me .99/mo....to me it just isnt worth the hassle of keeping something running.  5 or 6 years ago...when it wasnt so dirt cheap....then it made sense.

nice dragon <funnynypdspamKILLspamyahoo.com> wrote: With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.

Here is some example(three web site hosted in one old machine with only 256M RAM, web+Ftp+email service up and running for 6 month without a re-boot as of today):

http://www.augroups.selfip.com/

http://www.auelectronics.selfip.com/

http://www.handcraft.selfip.com/

In the mean time, you don't have to register your own web site and pay the annual fee. The maintain of the servers and machine is also very few and simple.

Once you got Internet at home, you basically got everything (email server, ftp server, web server, video stream if you want, and more).


     ____________________________________________________________________________________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658

2007\10\03@133729 by Dr Skip

picon face
I've done it both ways, and for free. While I would trust the Linux one to last
longer between reboots, the windows ones were easier to set up (automated
installs without hand crafting or compiling anything). IMHO, it all depends on
what OS you are familiar with more.

I have an XP home system hosting SMTP, POP, IMAP, 2 HTTP servers, encrypted
chat, SSH, a large weather station monitoring app (win only app), a 4 camera
video surveillance system (win only software, custom board), file serving,
Unison sync software, Cosmo server (for Chandler), VNC server, and Subversion
server. This is in addition to a bunch of utilities for system monitoring,
fetching webmail email and forwarding locally, a win only app that fetches all
sorts of weather data and radar every few minutes and stores/displays it, and
printer/fax utils for the Brother fax I have which can be used via email
through the server. It's got 512MB RAM and a fairly slow/old AMD chip.

I also use it surf and do other things, and it has had a software controlled
embroidery machine on it as well and handled all fine. It sits in the corner
and I reboot it once every few weeks 'just in case'. Everything besides the 4
camera card software (came with the card) and the weather station software
(came with the station) is open source or freeware.

I've found that most open source stuff has builds for windows these days, and
there are many more authors writing freeware for windows only as well. That
gives a slight edge to windows I think. However, if you only know one system
well, then it's the unknowns in the other one that keep you awake at night. It
doesn't matter which. I do think it is uncontroversial to say that installing
new software, especially portable ones, is (are) easier on windows these days.
However, if you can manage your applications on a less granular level,
something like a Knoppix distro is even more portable....

In the end, both OSes will suck all of your time away in chasing upgrades,
patches, configuring, writing custom whatever, monitoring, email, etc, while
making one feel productive and high tech. They just do it with different
approaches...  :(



Paul Anderson wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Gerhard Fiedler <.....listsKILLspamspam.....connectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> In my experience, Linux is easier to implement that with, and free :)
>

2007\10\03@134348 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 08:04 -0700, nice dragon wrote:
> With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
>
> Here is some example(three web site hosted in one old machine with only 256M RAM, web+Ftp+email service up and running for 6 month without a re-boot as of today):
>
> http://www.augroups.selfip.com/
>
> http://www.auelectronics.selfip.com/
>
> http://www.handcraft.selfip.com/
>
> In the mean time, you don't have to register your own web site and pay the annual fee. The maintain of the servers and machine is also very few and simple.
>
> Once you got Internet at home, you basically got everything (email server, ftp server, web server, video stream if you want, and more).

Careful here.

Many ISPs disallow the hosting of certain services over you connection,
and have been known to disable accounts detected as hosting these sorts
of services. A local ISP in my area specifically bans any web server
hosting, and has been known to "scan" whole user subnets with port 80
probes to find users running web servers.

It's similiar with other services.

On top of this, many ISPs block all ports, ingoing and going dealing
with SMTP, meaning you can certainly host an SMTP server, but you'll
never get any traffic.

Personally I think it's bollucks: I should be able to do whatever I want
with my connection, but that's just my opinion. And there are often ways
around it, I just run my servers on non standard ports.

TTYL

2007\10\03@142130 by Peter Todd

picon face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:15:46AM -0700, alan smith wrote:
> and..this is EE for what reason?

Everything Engineering

> but... I've done it both ways....having a linux machine sitting there doing email and web serving, and when it crashes...because eventually everything does (hardware failures, etc) you have to go and to it again.  And even tho running a firewall, the hackers still got in...found they were using it to just crunch some password hacking program.  
>
> So....I gave up on it.  For $6/year, I can have my stuff hosted on a '5-nines' machine, never worry about crashing, etc. Single (or 2?) email addresses, but since they are forwards, not a big deal.  My 'personal' Email costs me .99/mo....to me it just isnt worth the hassle of keeping something running.  5 or 6 years ago...when it wasnt so dirt cheap....then it made sense.

GMail has the ability to let you use your own domain now,
EraseMEwhateverspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTwhoever.com My brother tried it, and couldn't get it working,
but he's not very technical. I haven't tried it myself but if it works
I'd call that just about ideal.


Otherwise I'd recomend tektonic.net For $15/month you get a virtual
private server running Linux that can do all the webhosting and email
you'll ever need. Very reliable as well. You also get a free backup
slot, hit a button and their system makes a full copy of your whole
server which you can then download to backup off-site.

But yeah, if you want to keep things simple, just buy some of the really
cheap email or web hosting out there. But whatever you do, get your
*own* domain name under *your* control. Some of the cheaper hosting
plans will register "your" domain under their name, so then you're
locked in. Keep that seperate and under your control.

$40/year is nothing to make sure no-one can hold your email address
hostage.

- --
http://petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHA9ym3bMhDbI9xWQRAowlAJ9xEh/j3Ym3BfqC45vNiAT0YjppwACeJxPz
BfU3IWrEfSwwIfNEeRKoxj0=
=Dudk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2007\10\03@144125 by Bob Blick

face picon face
--- Peter Todd <petespamspam_OUTpetertodd.ca> wrote:

> GMail has the ability to let you use your own domain
> now,
> @spam@whateverKILLspamspamwhoever.com My brother tried it, and
> couldn't get it working,
> but he's not very technical. I haven't tried it
> myself but if it works
> I'd call that just about ideal.

Yeah, but some people aren't comfortable with google's
terms of service and would rather have some privacy.
Gmail might be OK for piclist mail but there's no way
I'd use it for personal mail. When I see a Preparation
H ad I don't want it to be because I mentioned
hemmorhoids in an email. Or whatever, you get the
idea. Google can't be trusted with our data.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2007\10\03@150532 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 09:58 -0600, Paul Anderson wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Gerhard Fiedler <KILLspamlistsKILLspamspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> > nice dragon wrote:
> >
> > > With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home
> > > with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
> >
> > FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)
> >
> >
> In my experience, Linux is easier to implement that with, and free :)

The benefit Linux has is it's all there (or at least, very easy to add
with a modern distro). The servers available are all proven, robust and
quite fast. Config is an issue in some cases.

Windows OTOH doesn't really have anything built in. There are solutions,
but you have to research options for each type of server. It's much more
of a hodge podge, and often takes more effort to get everything working
properly (it's not uncommon to download one server, find out it's crap,
and having to start all over again with another). On top of that,
Windows was never really meant for remote use, so you have to add
servers to support that.

Frankly, you could probably set this sort of thing up with any major OS,
there's nothing that special about doing it with Linux, or Windows. TTYL

2007\10\03@152620 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
alan smith wrote:
> and..this is EE for what reason?
>
> but... I've done it both ways....having a linux machine sitting there doing email and web serving, and when it crashes...because eventually everything does (hardware failures, etc) you have to go and to it again.  And even tho running a firewall, the hackers still got in...found they were using it to just crunch some password hacking program.  
>
> So....I gave up on it.  For $6/year, I can have my stuff hosted on a '5-nines' machine, never worry about crashing, etc. Single (or 2?) email addresses, but since they are forwards, not a big deal.  My 'personal' Email costs me .99/mo....to me it just isnt worth the hassle of keeping something running.  5 or 6 years ago...when it wasnt so dirt cheap....then it made sense.

Sounds like you made the right choice, if you can't keep the bad guys
off your box, you shoudn't be running a server.

Nate

2007\10\03@152712 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> Most residential service blocks port 25 (SMTP) incoming. You can't
> really do email over a home connection, nor can I understand why you
> would seriously want to.
> --
> Martin K

Some also block port 25 outbound for "normal" residential connections,
and those of us running mail servers appreciate that.  There needs to be
some "barrier to entry" beyond just setting a mail server up, usually
incorrectly as an open relay, and then allowing your box to spam the
world, once the bad guys find it.  But... that said, the "barrier" is
low... a couple of bucks a month for a static (real) routable IP address
is available from most carriers these days, without port restrictions.

I can answer the question with my own reasons, your goals might be
different.  I've had my own server for going on something like 10 years
now, through multiple ISP's, etc.  I always pay the extra price to have
real routable IP addresses, and then run my own stuff.

A few reasons:
- It's the way the Internet started, the way I started, and I'm used to it.
- I'm a Unix admin for a living.  I have no problems dealing with
setting up my own equipment to do what I want.
- No worries that my provider is going to go out of business, raise
prices, or decide not to fix something for a while when it's borked.
- My responsibility, done on my time.
- IMAP Server - This is probably the best part.  Long before commercial
vendors offered cheap/reasonable IMAP hosting, I had IMAP and every
single one of my mail clients from the command line (mutt) to
Thunderbird on the PeeeCeeee's to Mail.App on the Macs... and even the
webmail app (mailman), all "see" the same view of my e-mail.
- Back to the IMAP thing, kinda... server-side filters.  All of my
mailing lists and other non-personal "traffic" automatically gets put
into folders under the IMAP Inbox.  I don't have to sort/file anything
once I set up my procmail rules correctly on the server for my user.
- Helping friends out.  Numerous times, friends have complained that
their ISP won't allow large file attachments in e-mail.  I can offer
them a temporary e-mail account on the server in about 10 seconds if I'm
at a computer with Net access (remote management via SSH, of course), or
let them use the WebDAV, FTP, or even SCP files to the box and off of it.
- The server does multiple duty -- it has the webserver, and other
things for other "organizations" and personal projects hosted virtually.
  These can be added/removed at will.

Basically -- if you take the time to learn how to properly secure a
public server, and then take a minimal amount of up-front time to set it
up properly (spamassassin, clamav, etc... all the things a "provider"
would do), you end up "in control of your own destiny", so to speak.

Add in that you'll probably make a few friends in the process of
learning, and those friends might be willing to act as secondary DNS or
mail for you, etc... you can build just as good a system as any
provider, and all you have invested is the extra few bucks a month for a
"real" IP address or two, and you learned a hell of a lot more than the
average joe about how the Net works.

It was easier to do this over the years, learning as things changed (the
advent of spam, etc), but it's not insurmountable today.

Nate

2007\10\03@154141 by alan smith

picon face
So what was the purpose of 'dragon's' post....pretty sure it was just to get people to look at his website and what he was selling....?

     
---------------------------------
Don't let your dream ride pass you by.    Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.

2007\10\03@154205 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Blocking port 25 outbound, while stopping spambots, would be extremely
annoying for me. It should be my right to use an SMTP server other than
the ISP's provided server if I wish to do so. Is this what you are
referring to?

I have run my own servers since I had a cable internet connection. When
I had the opportunity I started to run my server at a business which had
more reliable internet. Now I run my server from a real colocation
service that has multi-homed internet and very good reliability.
Personal preference I guess, it's just that I hate it when my email gets
bounced.

IMAP is really the only way to go if you check your email from more than
one location. I run my IMAP through an SSH proxy tunnel so I know that
it's secure at least to my server.
--
Martin K

Nate Duehr wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\03@154259 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 17:45 +0200, Info wrote:
> > nice dragon wrote:
> >
> >> With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home
> >> with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
> >
> > FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)
> >
> > Gerhard
>
> How?

Well, download an http server (i.e. apache for windows), install it,
config it. Then download a mail server for windows, install it, config
it. And so on...

> And don't you need some redundency for email, like another
> backup-email server?

Need? That depends on you. Most sendmail type servers will retry if a
server is down, so assuming you keep an eye on your connection and
server I wouldn't have a problem with running a mail server for non
critical email this way (i.e. the account where I get my piclist
traffic).

If OTOH it's for a business where loss of email means loss of money,
then yes, redundancy is probably a very important thing to have (note
redundancy goes beyond just the server, the connection should also be
redundant, along with things like power. Ideally a redundant server in
another physical location would be best.

TTYL

2007\10\03@155611 by alan smith

picon face
yeah exactly....its time vs money.  I can make more $$ working on a project than figuring out the server....and as you are a unix wizard/admin...makes perfect sense for you to do your own.  We all have our talents, and I am not afraid to say mine is NOT doing linux admin stuff.  Besides....if the box goes down during the day and the wife calls.....yeah...much easier not having that issue  :-)

Nate Duehr <RemoveMEnateTakeThisOuTspamnatetech.com> wrote: alan smith wrote:
> and..this is EE for what reason?
>
> but... I've done it both ways....having a linux machine sitting there doing email and web serving, and when it crashes...because eventually everything does (hardware failures, etc) you have to go and to it again.  And even tho running a firewall, the hackers still got in...found they were using it to just crunch some password hacking program.  
>
> So....I gave up on it.  For $6/year, I can have my stuff hosted on a '5-nines' machine, never worry about crashing, etc. Single (or 2?) email addresses, but since they are forwards, not a big deal.  My 'personal' Email costs me .99/mo....to me it just isnt worth the hassle of keeping something running.  5 or 6 years ago...when it wasnt so dirt cheap....then it made sense.

Sounds like you made the right choice, if you can't keep the bad guys
off your box, you shoudn't be running a server.

Nate

2007\10\03@160246 by Neil Cherry

picon face
Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> Blocking port 25 outbound, while stopping spambots, would be extremely
> annoying for me. It should be my right to use an SMTP server other than
> the ISP's provided server if I wish to do so. Is this what you are
> referring to?

Most SP's provide for the use of other ports (such as 587). The new
ports require login. A smart bot herder will find a way to just ask the
end user for their ID and pasword but it does make it one step more
difficult.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       spamBeGonencherryspamBeGonespamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2007\10\03@161207 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 12:41 -0400, Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> Most residential service blocks port 25 (SMTP) incoming. You can't
> really do email over a home connection, nor can I understand why you
> would seriously want to.

Simple: reliability. Many ISPs, to this day, just aren't very reliable
when it comes to their email servers. I don't use my provider's email
servers for that specific reason, they just aren't reliable. FWIW my
email goes through gmail, which has been amazingly reliable, certainly
better then any ISP's email server I've ever encountered.

There's also the control element, hosting your own email server means
you can choose whatever domain name you want, and have as many email
accounts as you want.

TTYL

2007\10\03@161400 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 15:41 -0400, Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> Blocking port 25 outbound, while stopping spambots, would be extremely
> annoying for me.

My ISP blocks both outgoing and incoming port 25 connections, as do most
of the largest ISPs in my area.

> It should be my right to use an SMTP server other than
> the ISP's provided server if I wish to do so.

Well, then obviously the ISP I use wouldn't be right for you! :)

TTYL


2007\10\03@161610 by Dr Skip

picon face
Just to be complete ;) , it also runs a syslogd, a video server (to
remote watch the security cams), a proxy server, and a PVR for a USB
based TV receiver for recording TV programs... The group here can come
in via SSH and do anything securely, even surf via the proxy or watch
the cams and no one at Starbucks can see what's going on. All on
windows, free, and minimal setup or management. I'm not pro-windows, but
it isn't as bad as it used to be.

Dr Skip wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\03@170338 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

>>>> With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at
>>>> home with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
>>>
>>> FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)
>>
>> How?
>
> Well, download an http server (i.e. apache for windows)

FWIW, IIS comes with most recent versions of Windows (Win2k, WinXP Pro, not
sure about Vista). Includes http, ftp, smtp. Just configure and enable it.

Gerhard

2007\10\03@170635 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> Blocking port 25 outbound, while stopping spambots, would be extremely
> annoying for me. It should be my right to use an SMTP server other than
> the ISP's provided server if I wish to do so. Is this what you are
> referring to?

This is a hot-button topic for ISP admins, and has been for years.  The
collateral damage of "annoying" you and a small percentage of their
users who want port 25 outbound to work, becomes less and less important
compared to stopping spambots and other hideous things.

In fact, most folks who run mail servers tag mail coming from known
dynamic/residential IP ranges as "questionable" anyway, as they spam
scan... and it doesn't take much to get mail from a residential DSL or
Cable Modem dropped at most production mail servers nowadays.

> I have run my own servers since I had a cable internet connection. When
> I had the opportunity I started to run my server at a business which had
> more reliable internet. Now I run my server from a real colocation
> service that has multi-homed internet and very good reliability.
> Personal preference I guess, it's just that I hate it when my email gets
> bounced.

I run my server at home with an off-site hosted secondary MX on more
reliable bandwidth, usually.  (I think I have it misconfigured right
now, but don't care... nothing that important in e-mail coming in at
home, and those that really need to reach me know all my phone numbers.)

> IMAP is really the only way to go if you check your email from more than
> one location. I run my IMAP through an SSH proxy tunnel so I know that
> it's secure at least to my server.

I went the IMAP SSL/TLS route instead, since it's built into almost
every available mail client.  In fact, the only client that really sucks
at "true" IMAP (not IMAPv4/Exchange, it's good at that) is Outlook
2000/2003.  Haven't tried later versions.  It doesn't do IDLE support,
and various other things that drive me nuts.  It doesn't update
sub-folders easily without a fight, either.  (Since I deliver directly
to sub-folders at the server, the client has to PAY ATTENTION to new
messages arriving in sub-folders.)

Frankly, the "cleanest" IMAP client so far that I've ever used (and I've
been doing this since Pegasus Mail was popular!) is Apple's Mail.App on
the Macs.

It handles it all without configuration or fiddling.  Thunderbird is a
close second, but if I create a new folder on one client, I have to
"subscribe" to it on the others.  It doesn't auto-subscribe.  And there
are some other Thunderbird gaffs, like when viewing in threaded mode, if
you click on a message in a collapsed thread and hit Delete, it doesn't
delete the whole thread, just the top message, and then it opens the
second one.  Little stuff like that.  Both T-Bird and Mail.App have
EXCELLENT "off-line" reading/replying support nowadays -- something I
struggled to find until the first good versions of that feature started
showing up in early T-Bird.

Keeping the address books synched across multiple machines and OS's had
been a bit of a challenge.  I've tried a lot of things for that
(stopping short of setting up my own LDAP server) and basically found
that Plaxo (the commercial service, but the free works pretty well too)
seems to have it just about right, and that's one service I'll pay
for... as the address book grows, sync problems and loss of data are
highly intrusive... got tired of it, and haven't really had problems
with Plaxo at all.

Nate

2007\10\03@170849 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:

> If OTOH it's for a business where loss of email means loss of money,
> then yes, redundancy is probably a very important thing to have (note
> redundancy goes beyond just the server, the connection should also be
> redundant, along with things like power. Ideally a redundant server in
> another physical location would be best.

Some businesses also have to archive all mail, a daunting task for a
small one-man-show admin to get "right".  Once you hit that size, you
either have hired a sysadmin or you're outsourcing...

Even with all the work I've done on it, I don't consider my home mail
server "production quality"... but then again, I work in telco on
systems with something like seven nines... so "production quality" to
one person is another person's "overkill".  :-)

Nate

2007\10\03@171123 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Dr Skip wrote:
> Just to be complete ;) , it also runs a syslogd, a video server (to
> remote watch the security cams), a proxy server, and a PVR for a USB
> based TV receiver for recording TV programs... The group here can come
> in via SSH and do anything securely, even surf via the proxy or watch
> the cams and no one at Starbucks can see what's going on. All on
> windows, free, and minimal setup or management. I'm not pro-windows, but
> it isn't as bad as it used to be.

I actually (maybe surprisingly from a "unix guy" standpoint - don't be
too shocked now!) agree.  Windows servers can also do an adequate job of
handling most small home server/small office serving jobs these days.

I like using Apache on Windows still over IIS... but that's just my "I
worked for a co-lo company who had a lot of clueless dot-bomb customers"
scars showing.  :-)

Nate

2007\10\03@171545 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Dr Skip wrote:

> I have an XP home system hosting SMTP, POP, IMAP,

What IMAP server are you using?

Gerhard

2007\10\03@181122 by Dr Skip

picon face
Mercury, which is related to Pegasus. I use MailEnable however, for SMTP and
POP, which has some nice features. I don't use Mercury much now since getting
Cosmo up and running. It was mostly for testing other options (like IMAP) for
use with Chandler groupware. I may take it down as no one here uses it very
much otherwise.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Dr Skip wrote:
>
>
> What IMAP server are you using?
>
> Gerhard
>

2007\10\03@181525 by Info

flavicon
face
I have a Win2003 server that I'd like to Remote Desktop to.
There's a NAT router between lan and internet.
How/what do you guys use to 'secure' it?

2007\10\03@181857 by Dr Skip

picon face
I also have begun trying server-2-go and WOS portable. Both are full
web/wiki/php/sql/blog/etc servers ready to go. They seem impressive and are on
windows too. All I've done is start them up and play, but all of the hard work
seems to have been done...

-Skip

2007\10\03@181931 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Mail that I send from my PC to my mail server (at a data center in VA)
would not be filtered as originating from my PC on Verizon FIOS or
Comcast. Having my own SMTP server (on a commercial net) is why I would
want port 25 to be open. I suppose it's irrelevant though because as it
was noted I could choose to run SMTP on whatever port I like, and I use
it through an SSH tunnel anyway so it's actually going to localhost. I
just resolved my own non-issue =)
--
Martin K

Nate Duehr wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\03@182813 by Rikard Bosnjakovic

picon face
On 03/10/2007, Gerhard Fiedler <TakeThisOuTlistsEraseMEspamspam_OUTconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:

> > With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at home
> > with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
>
> FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)

I'd say Windows 2000 is certainly a big additional cost.

--
- Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/

2007\10\03@182823 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 12:41 -0400, Martin Klingensmith wrote:
>> Most residential service blocks port 25 (SMTP) incoming. You can't
>> really do email over a home connection, nor can I understand why you
>> would seriously want to.
>
> Simple: reliability. Many ISPs, to this day, just aren't very reliable
> when it comes to their email servers. I don't use my provider's email
> servers for that specific reason, they just aren't reliable. FWIW my
> email goes through gmail, which has been amazingly reliable, certainly
> better then any ISP's email server I've ever encountered.
>
> There's also the control element, hosting your own email server means
> you can choose whatever domain name you want, and have as many email
> accounts as you want.

And as much disk space as you want.  :-)

Nate

2007\10\03@193440 by Herbert Graf
flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 15:10 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Even with all the work I've done on it, I don't consider my home mail
> server "production quality"... but then again, I work in telco on
> systems with something like seven nines... so "production quality" to
> one person is another person's "overkill".  :-)

Hehe, that automatically disqualifies your opinion! :) If everything
computer wise ran with the reliability of the telco, alot of people
would be out of work! (me included) :) TTYL

2007\10\03@195038 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
My Thunderbird client auto-subscribes to new folders. Perhaps it's the
IMAP server I use (courier).

If you would like to select an entire thread, you can click on the
thread symbol (sort of looks like a crossword puzzle) and then click
delete. Killing threads would be nice: auto-ignoring future messages in
a thread. That's been around since at least FIDOnet!

Fortunately for me, I've not needed to worry about the address book too
much. I just don't really use it. I have tried my own LDAP
implementations though. I also managed to connect to a microsoft
(exchange?) LDAP server, though the interface wasn't very nice and it
didn't work well. It's well documented that Microsoft "Borrows"
protocols and "Improves" them, making them incompatible with the
oft-used /standards/.
--
Martin K

Nate Duehr wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\03@195606 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 15:10 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Even with all the work I've done on it, I don't consider my home mail
>> server "production quality"... but then again, I work in telco on
>> systems with something like seven nines... so "production quality" to
>> one person is another person's "overkill".  :-)
>
> Hehe, that automatically disqualifies your opinion! :) If everything
> computer wise ran with the reliability of the telco, alot of people
> would be out of work! (me included) :) TTYL

Heh... yeah, I hear ya.

Actually telco systems aren't as "robust" as many think, they're just
installed in heavy redundancy.  One goes down, the other comes up...

Works well for upgrades too... upgrade the off-line, cut over... make
sure everything's working and happy, upgrade the original online that's
now the off-line node...

Recently our product line has seen a push from customers that even a few
minutes of downtime for the "cut-over" process isn't "acceptable" in the
marketplace anymore.  I figure in the next couple of years, we'll have
"downtime" for that process completely removed.  The first cut at that
is already out the door... we'll see how it performs in the "real
world".  It'll have problems... but it'll generally work.

Another push is toward automated copying of update files around the
clusters... which is easy.  Then the "upgrade" cycle is kicked off
manually on each node as it's removed from the cluster.

What it'll come down to is, a system that has "loss of capacity" during
upgrades, but never is down unless the power switch is turned off.

Nate

2007\10\03@202057 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 17:42 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> >>>> With Linux, you can build and host your own web/ftp/email server at
> >>>> home with almost no additional cost, Once you get Internet at home.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW, you can do that with Windows, too. (At least with Win2k+.)
> >>
> >> How?
> >
> > Well, download an http server (i.e. apache for windows)
>
> FWIW, IIS comes with most recent versions of Windows (Win2k, WinXP Pro, not
> sure about Vista). Includes http, ftp, smtp. Just configure and enable it.

Run IIS if you wish, considering the HUGE number of issues with regards
to IIS over the years (yes, the current version seems to have fixed many
of these problems, but who knows) I would STRONGLY recommend people use
something else.

Apache is pretty easy to get going, and is VERY established as a robust
and high performance server. Just my opinion though.

TTYL

2007\10\03@202312 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 00:15 +0200, Info wrote:
> I have a Win2003 server that I'd like to Remote Desktop to.
> There's a NAT router between lan and internet.
> How/what do you guys use to 'secure' it?

I'd use a VPN. Replace the NAT router with one with a VPN server. A
second option would be to install a VPN server on one of the machines on
your network. TTYL

2007\10\03@202511 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 16:29 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 12:41 -0400, Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> >> Most residential service blocks port 25 (SMTP) incoming. You can't
> >> really do email over a home connection, nor can I understand why you
> >> would seriously want to.
> >
> > Simple: reliability. Many ISPs, to this day, just aren't very reliable
> > when it comes to their email servers. I don't use my provider's email
> > servers for that specific reason, they just aren't reliable. FWIW my
> > email goes through gmail, which has been amazingly reliable, certainly
> > better then any ISP's email server I've ever encountered.
> >
> > There's also the control element, hosting your own email server means
> > you can choose whatever domain name you want, and have as many email
> > accounts as you want.
>
> And as much disk space as you want.  :-)

Very true. Another important benefit is control of spam filtering. Most
providers now filter for spam, giving you zero choice as to whether it
done, or how it's done. This can be VERY frustrating when, for whatever
reason, an important email is blocked and you don't even know it's
happening! (has happened to me a bunch of times...).

TTYL

2007\10\03@220532 by Funny NYPD

picon face
True. With Linux, and its application programs you can almost do anything you want in internet. I saw those server function on my Linux, but never turn it on, since I got a very old machine with only 256M of SDRAM. Pretty reliable though, running 24x7.

Funny NYPD



{Original Message removed}

2007\10\03@220840 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Linux is hardly to go down. My machine is actually a DIY PC with all cheapest parts from Tigerdirect ($199, 5 years ago, orignally 128M RAM, then added another 128M RAM). It runs fine on windows XP with 256M RAM, runs great on Linux.

Funny NYPD



{Original Message removed}

2007\10\03@222625 by Funny NYPD

picon face
You should have used firewall . And VNC (hope it is still free) is a very good remote software.

Funny NYPD



----- Original Message ----
From: Info <RemoveMEinfospamTakeThisOuTdatech.se>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <piclistEraseMEspam.....mit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:15:04 PM
Subject: Re: [EE]you can build & host your own web at home, with basicallynocost;


I have a Win2003 server that I'd like to Remote Desktop to.
There's a NAT router between lan and internet.
How/what do you guys use to 'secure' it?

2007\10\03@230622 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Under windows, I use VNN and VNC plus firewall.

Funny NYPD



----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Klingensmith <EraseMEmartinspamnnytech.net>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <RemoveMEpiclistEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:30:56 PM
Subject: Re: [EE]you can build & host your own web at home, with basicallynocost;


Info wrote:
> I have a Win2003 server that I'd like to Remote Desktop to.
> There's a NAT router between lan and internet.
> How/what do you guys use to 'secure' it?
>
>  
I believe there is a secure remote desktop protocol. If you can't do
this, the better option (IMHO) is a secure VPN (virtual private network)
which bridges (tunnels) your LAN through the internet to your remote
computer. Depending on what your NAT router is, it might have VPN features.

--
Martin K

2007\10\04@004008 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 10/4/07, Info <RemoveMEinfospam_OUTspamKILLspamdatech.se> wrote:
>
> I have a Win2003 server that I'd like to Remote Desktop to.
> There's a NAT router between lan and internet.
> How/what do you guys use to 'secure' it?


Here is a free way.

Run a linux vm with ssh server on the  win2003 server (you can use
vmware-player for this)
Forward port 22 from the router to the linux vm

When you want to use remote desktop, use ssh to forward port 3389 to a port
on the machine
you are running the remote desktop client on.

Direct the rdesktop client to connect to localhost

Bam. you're in

John La Rooy

Alternatively - perhaps there is an ssh server that runs on windows that
handle the port forward which
would simplify things

2007\10\04@042733 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>For $6/year, I can have my stuff hosted
...  
>My 'personal' Email costs me .99/mo....to me it just
>isnt worth the hassle of keeping something running.

The electricity for running your own machine would cost more than that ...

2007\10\04@055155 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
> Most residential service blocks port 25 (SMTP) incoming.

ISTR that this is often done to stop hacking of certain M$ products that
opened this port and were real easy to gain unauthorised entry from the
outside, hence a magnet for spam relays.

2007\10\04@090505 by Funny NYPD

picon face
>For $6/year, I can have my stuff hosted.
Interesting, can you post the host service and your web?
I used to use a web hoster about the same price $72/year (with very limited bandwidth and flow), and signed a two year contract. Then it got bankrupt. After that, I found another web host for $4.99/month (2 years of contract), it, again, doesn't run long, got bankrupt.

I thought most of the low-end web-host business in the USA has already run out of business after the bubble of dotcom.

Though there are free host everywhere you basically pay nothing. however they do post adv. on your web page.
Funny NYPD



{Original Message removed}

2007\10\04@122318 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Herbert,

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:43:10 -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Me too, that's why I am with an ISP that allows you to do anything you like with the line - they positively encourage you to run your own servers if that's what you
want to do (they provide tech.support on how to do it).  They're a bit more expensive than the mass market, bargain-basement, call-centre-in-Bangalore ISPs, but
worth every penny, IMHO.

They're in England, of course, but I'd have thought there were similar ones in the USA.   Aren't there?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\04@131120 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 06:04 -0700, Funny NYPD wrote:
> >For $6/year, I can have my stuff hosted.
> Interesting, can you post the host service and your web?
> I used to use a web hoster about the same price $72/year (with very limited bandwidth and flow), and signed a two year contract. Then it got bankrupt. After that, I found another web host for $4.99/month (2 years of contract), it, again, doesn't run long, got bankrupt.
>
> I thought most of the low-end web-host business in the USA has already run out of business after the bubble of dotcom.
>
> Though there are free host everywhere you basically pay nothing. however they do post adv. on your web page.
> Funny NYPD

FWIW I use http://www.doteasy.net. They are truly zero cost for hosting. They
of course limit bandwidth, but I've never hit the limit. Very reliable
company, I highly recommend them.

FWIW they make their money on "upgrades" to the free hosting, but
there's never any pressure to upgrade.

TTYL

2007\10\04@143414 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Harold,
My Camcast cable internet in the US cost about $45/month, giving the similiar speed as your ISP.

Funny NYPD



{Original Message removed}

2007\10\04@143901 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Good to know you guys in England has a good service from ISP. I personally didn't realize any similar service in USA? Basically you are on your own.

Europe is my dream place for my retirement.

Funny NYPD



{Original Message removed}

2007\10\04@145044 by Dan Smith

face picon face
On 04/10/2007, Howard Winter <RemoveMEHDRWTakeThisOuTspamspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Me too, that's why I am with an ISP that allows you to do anything you like with the line - they positively encourage you to run your own servers if that's what you
> want to do (they provide tech.support on how to do it).

I'm with the same ISP as Howard (Andrews & Arnold) and for the same
reasons too.  There aren't many ISPs where the technical director is a
Reverend :-)

Dan

2007\10\04@162739 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Harold,
you can try the web I posted before, see how fast it can bring up my web pages.
I tested, it seems fine for me. As far as I remember my service got a 6M download, I don't know the upload speed.

Funny NYPD



{Original Message removed}

2007\10\04@163133 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 17:23 +0100, Howard Winter wrote:
> Me too, that's why I am with an ISP that allows you to do anything you like with the line - they positively encourage you to run your own servers if that's what you
> want to do (they provide tech.support on how to do it).  They're a bit more expensive than the mass market, bargain-basement, call-centre-in-Bangalore ISPs, but
> worth every penny, IMHO.
>
> They're in England, of course, but I'd have thought there were similar ones in the USA.   Aren't there?

Actually, not that it matters much, but I'm in Canada.

FWIW yes, there are ISPs that are completely "open". That said, the
"biggest" ISPs generally have these blocks.

In my case, the SMTP block doesn't affect me, I've got my ways around
it, and as for server hosting I just run my stuff on non standard ports.

I could go elsewhere, but since my DSL connection is on a dry pair the
cost would be the same whether I stayed with my current ISP (the phone
company) or went third party, so it's not worth the effort.

The only other option (currently) for high speed is the cable company.
Again, they block similarly, and cost the same, so not worth the bother.

There is a new ISP coming to my area (eventually). It's wireless (over
WiFi, using directional antennas) and claims to offer symmetric 10Mbps
Up/Down to the internet (note they're saying actual speed to the net,
not just to their servers), for the same price as I pay now. I don't
care about the down speed much, but having anything more then the
800kbps I get up would be wonderful, so I'll certainly consider them.
10Mbps up may not sound very fast to some here (some parts of Asia have
had that speed, or more, for a while now), but to me it would be a
godsend.

Only concern I have is latency, I don't know what their trunk will be
like, but if they have too much latency I'll have to pass them by. We'll
see...

TTYL

2007\10\04@164241 by Alan Schnittman

picon face

At 12:23 PM 10/4/2007, Howard Winter writes:
>Herbert,
>
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:43:10 -0400, Herbert Graf writes:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Personally I think it's bollucks: I should be able to do whatever I want
>> with my connection, but that's just my opinion. And there are often ways
>> around it, I just run my servers on non standard ports.
>
>Me too, that's why I am with an ISP that allows you to do anything you
>like with the line - they positively encourage you to run your own
>servers if that's what you
>want to do (they provide tech.support on how to do it).  They're a bit
>more expensive than the mass market, bargain-basement,
>call-centre-in-Bangalore ISPs, but
>worth every penny, IMHO.
>
>They're in England, of course, but I'd have thought there were similar
>ones in the USA.   Aren't there?
>


There is at least one such provider here in the US.  Speakeasy
explicitly permits running servers, and with some service plans also
allow (wired or wireless) connection sharing and/or reselling.  The
also provide shell access for those who care.  I had a DSL account
with them for several years and was happy with their service
including being able to purchase additional upstream bandwidth to
support the servers that we ran.

If I could get any DSL service where I now live, they'd be at the top
of my list although is does give me pause that they were recently
acquired by Best Buy.  Their current terms of service agree with what
I write above.

<http://www.speakeasy.net/tos/>

Their speed test page is handy too:  <http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/>.

-- Alan

2007\10\04@173652 by Dr Skip

picon face
Either they are brutally honest, or they need a math refresher in marketing...
From their web site:

--------------
Speakeasy customers continue to give our service an enthusiastic <90%
satisfaction rating. You'll never hear a script when you call our customer
support team.
--------------

I wonder how much "less than 90%" they give them... ;)


Alan Schnittman wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\06@084458 by Funny NYPD

picon face
BTW, that reminds me my EMAIL/FTP/Web server also working as a file/print server.

Funny



----- Original Message ----
From: Herbert Graf <EraseMEmailinglist3spamspamspamBeGonefarcite.net>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <RemoveMEpiclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 5, 2007 11:37:48 AM
Subject: Re: [EE]you can build & host your own web at home, with basically nocost;


On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 19:21 +0100, peter green wrote:
> > Fedora is now a never-ending treadmill of upgrade pain, by design.  6
> > month upgrade cycle, and support for only the current and last two
> > versions, meaning you MUST upgrade every 18 months if you want security
> > patches from an "official" source.
> >
> >  
> More realistically every 12 months unless you want to do your upgrade on
> release day.

You're right. When Fedora was my distro of choice I found I was
upgrading every 12 months, often sooner.

That became a little trying, and with all the other issues I had with
the latest versions of Fedora I've started switching to Ubuntu.

I have to say, Ubuntu impresses me more and more every day. Just
yesterday I plugged my Ubuntu laptop into the network at work. I wanted
to print something, so I went to my other machine and got all the
network settings (windows shared printer), knowing when I did the same
thing under Fedora it was an "interesting" effort to get it working.

Started up the "add printer" dialog, was right about to click the
"specify stuff manually" option when I noticed an "autodetected network
printers" section. Amazingly it listed the printer I wanted (along with
the other on the floor)!!! I was truly amazed.

I connected to it, tried to print and was astonished that the printer
printed everything without an issue.

Just another case where Linux has gotten easier to use then windows. I
know in windows it would have been much more involved to get that
printer share right.

TTYL

2007\10\07@111032 by Rich Satterlee

flavicon
face
Heh-heh-

Well, I don't know about your wife, but mine would call if me if the ISP went
down, if hotmail (remember them?) went down, etc., etc.  THEN the rest of
the family did the same, still do drat it.  So, I have the extended family
on the mail server.

So, that's the reason that I went with my own server.  To paraphrase Mell
Brooks "It's good to be the root".

Seriously, if I happen to be near the internet, I can SSH into the box and
take a peek at what's going on.

Several good comments have been made about IMAP, and I agree. I too use IMAP.
But, I don't let it out of my system.  I picked up from sourceforge a web
based mail program (aeromail) that I could modify to my heart's content. And
I have done so.  Now I have my server the way that the "group" wants it and
pretty darn secure (no, I don't allow relays, thank you very much).

Another good candidate what/is horde.  I can set my spam filters the way
that I want.

I have a static IP address and it took a bit of digging to find the ISP that
would support it in my area rather than Ma Bell.  When the first ISP went
belly up, I did manage to find another one.  Cost is comparable to a dynamic
IP account.

All my traffic goes through the server, Natting and firewalled with the
older ipchains, but still.  

Web server for the family, and a couple of friends who have start ups.  The
trick is to be smart on the images that you pass along as I have
asymetrical DSL so I watch my uplink requirements.

All the good stuff about secondary DNS for friends, etc. also comes into
play.

This is on an old Pentium plain (586) machine that a friend of mine
discarded (the standby server which sits unplugged is also of similar class).
With memory added as other friends threw away their old Windoze boxes for
newer ones.

I don't run a print server on it.  My wife doesn't want to go out to the
garage to pick up her printout.... Go figure.

Anyway, if you do have some 'nix admin experience, then it's a very small
learning curve.  If you don't, then you have a wonderfull oppertunity to
increase the range of your knowledge if you want.

Oh, and my uptime on the server is far higher than the DSL/ISP connection
to the outside world and *FAR* higher than the support servers of the ISP.

Don't know if this will change any minds or not, but at least for my
experience, it was worth making the move.

 Cheers,

  Rich S.

{Quote hidden}

> --

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...