By popular request: jldugger@jldugger:~ $ mkfs.reiserfs /dev/sda1 jldugger@jldugger:~ $ sudo fdisk /dev/sda The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 24321. There is nothing wrong with that, but this is larger than 1024, and could in certain setups cause problems with: 1) software that runs at boot time (e.g., old versions of LILO) 2) booting and partitioning software from other OSs (e.g., DOS FDISK, OS/2 FDISK) Command (m for help): p Disk /dev/sda: 200.0 GB, 200049647616 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 24321 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 24321 195358401 83 Linux jldugger@jldugger:~ $ df -i Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/hda1 1196032 116031 1080001 10% / tmpfs 129574 1 129573 1% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 0 0 0 - /mnt/reiser Like I said, someone wondered about inodes, but reiser doesn't report them regularly. Also, is there a way to set the reply-to on this mailing list to kclug@kclug.org instead of the original author of a particular sender? On more than one occasion I've meant to send to the list and sent a direct reply instead, so I thought I'd see if there's some option I'm missing that could help the absent minded like myself. On Apr 6, 2005 12:13 PM, Jason Clinton <me@jasonclinton.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 07:22 -0700, Jack wrote:

...

I no longer actively use the reiserfs as the ext3 is more convenient to use and offers comparable performance and protection, but could probably help debug your problem. It was the first stable resilient fs offered for Linux and is quite mature, although I've seen fud/uninformed/confused statements about resierfs.

Actually, while ext2 is tried and true, reiserfs was the first stable journaled filesystem for Linux. And reiserfs 4 (which is too new to use for production) beats the pants off of all the other file systems.

_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

Good news! The saga of the reiserfs gone wrong comes to a anticlimatic close. After an IRC brainstorming session, I discovered that the reiserfsprogs had not been installed. As naive user, I had assumed that if I had access to a functioning program like mkfs.reiserfs, then that was all I needed. It turns out not to be the case, and after apt-getting the appropriate pacakge, I find myself able to make reiserfs partitions capable of holding more than 4 gigabytes of data. This, of course, was compounded by using the device instead of the first (and only) partition on my first attempt. I've gotten it all up and done correctly now. *Sigh* Whether this is really the end, or if this is simply an open ended conclusion leaving large holes for a sequal, I can't tell you. But for now it appears to be working appropriately. Thanks for all the help; I find I learn far more from failure than from success, and I've found some neat new tools as a result. Justin Dugger On Apr 6, 2005 2:18 PM, Chris Bier <chris.bier@cymor.com> wrote:

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

Justin Dugger wrote: <snip /> | Also, is there a way to set the reply-to on this mailing list to | kclug@kclug.org instead of the original author of a particular sender? | On more than one occasion I've meant to send to the list and sent a | direct reply instead, so I thought I'd see if there's some option I'm | missing that could help the absent minded like myself. <snip/> Justin, ~ I usually use "Reply to All" which picks up the list address. I believe that when replyto was set to the list people complained because it was hard to email the original person instead of the list. I'm sure if there was enough demand, it could be changed.

Chris - -- I digitally sign my emails. If you see an attachment with .asc, then that means your email client doesn't support PGP digital signatures. http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/documentation/faqs.html#q1.1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCVDYJE5xXU3JS1mQRAqjCAJ9xT042eBgcbo4LVNU/HWbSB89o0ACghYfx LWxTuiRKITVw0LGbXTx1cjs= =T4uq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

Jeremy Turner wrote:

For more info, Google has lots of hits on reply-to munging, and I think it's even been covered on this list before.

Two links of interest are "Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful" and "Reply-To Munging Considered Useful", available at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.htm and http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml respectively. I manage a couple of lists where reply-goes-to-list is the expected behavior, so that's how Mailman is configured.

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:27:14PM -0500, Monty J. Harder wrote:

On Apr 6, 2005 3:06 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald@ethereal.com> wrote:

...

respectively. I manage a couple of lists where reply-goes-to-list is the expected behavior, so that's how Mailman is configured.

The thing that needs to be clarified here is that the listserv should be configured to add a Reply-To with its own address, but should not delete any existing Reply-To that may already be on the message.

Is that possible? Can you have multiple Reply-To: headers? Is there a setting in mailing list software that will allow you to add a Reply-To: header, rather than overwrite the existing one?

From the 3 RFCs that I found, it looks like they don't comment on this issue directly, just specifying what format the header should be. The third reference recommends that you really shouldn't use the Reply-To: header unless you absolutely have to.

Jeremy Pardon the long quoted text:

From RFC 1036 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html)

2.2. Optional Headers 2.2.1. Reply-To This line has the same format as "From". If present, mailed replies to the author should be sent to the name given here. Otherwise, replies are mailed to the name on the "From" line. (This does not prevent additional copies from being sent to recipients named by the replier, or on "To" or "Cc" lines.) The full name may be optionally given, in parentheses, as in the "From" line.

From RFC 822 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html)

4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail- boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine address. In the second case, an author may wish additional * persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A * somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message * teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution * services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- To" * field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then * participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee * the correct distribution of any submission of their own. Note: The Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended to identify a path back to the orginator of the message. The Reply-To" field is added by the message originator and is intended to direct replies. 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO For systems which automatically generate address lists for replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: o The Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any problems in transport or delivery of the original messages. If there is no Sender" field, then the From" field mailbox should be used. o The Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used automatically, in a recipient's reply message. * o If the Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the * addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) * indicated in the From" field. o If there is a From" field, but no Reply-To" field, the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated in the From" field. Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to communicate with the person that initiated the message transfer. In such cases, it is reasonable to use the Sender" address. * This recommendation is intended only for automated use of * originator-fields and is not intended to suggest that replies * may not also be sent to other recipients of messages. It is up * to the respective mail-handling programs to decide what * additional facilities will be provided.

From RFC 2076 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2076.html)

3.5 Response control This header is meant to indicate where the sender wants replies to Unfortunately, this is ambiguous, since there are different kinds of replies, which the sender may wish to go to different addresses. In particular, there are personal replies intended for only one person, and group replies, intended for the whole group of people who read the replied-to message (often a mailing list, a newsgroup name cannot appear here because of different syntax, see "Followup-To" below.). Some mail systems use this header to indicate a better form of the e-mail address of the sender. Some mailing list expanders puts the name of the list in this header. These practices are controversial. The personal opinion of the author of this RFC is that this header should be avoided except in special cases, but this is a personal opinion not shared by all specialists in the area.