A Few Noob Questions. - BSD

This is a discussion on A Few Noob Questions. - BSD ; Hi! I've got OBSD-4.3 Installed. 1...My sound card is detected and works, however programs like Xmms/Amarok will not allow me to use their volume controls, I'm limited to the speaker volume controls. Both programs play and work fine but I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: A Few Noob Questions.

  1. A Few Noob Questions.

    Hi!
    I've got OBSD-4.3 Installed.

    1...My sound card is detected and works, however programs like Xmms/Amarok will not allow me to use their
    volume controls, I'm limited to the speaker volume controls. Both programs play and work fine but I can't use
    the programs volume/equalizer controls.

    2...Xorg is listening on port 6000. I don't need or want that. How to disable?

    3...'netstat -an' is showing my computer is listening on several ports by default. How to disable sendmail etc?

    Thank you very much in advance.

    Tammy.



  2. Re: A Few Noob Questions.

    Tammy Lyn wrote:
    > 1...My sound card is detected and works, however programs like
    > Xmms/Amarok will not allow me to use their volume controls, I'm
    > limited to the speaker volume controls. Both programs play and work
    > fine but I can't use the programs volume/equalizer controls.


    This is sound card specific, if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure
    someone will be along to help you with this; if not, try posting a
    dmesg.

    > 2...Xorg is listening on port 6000. I don't need or want that. How to
    > disable?


    It doesn't actually accept data from anywhere unless you change things
    with xhost(1) and the like. In short, this is harmless.

    The way to stop this is passing -nolisten tcp to the X binary (see
    Xserver(8)). How to do this will likely vary depending on how you start
    X (usually xinit or startx). This might break stuff, though.

    If you're really paranoid, you're better off configuring pf to block
    access.

    > 3...'netstat -an' is showing my computer is listening on several ports
    > by default. How to disable sendmail etc?


    sendmail(8) doesn't accept data from outside either, at least not by
    default. See afterboot(8), under "Sendmail".

    sshd(8) is also listening; make sure you either have a strong password
    for all relevant accounts or disallow password logins altogether.

    The rest are run by inetd(8), see /etc/inetd.conf.

    Relax. OpenBSD is secure by default.

    Joachim

    P.S. What's with wrapping at 113 columns or some such nonsense? A
    classical terminal is 80 characters wide, so wrap at 72 columns or less
    to allow for some follow-ups.
    P.P.S. Welcome to OpenBSD! Feel free to post any questions you have
    either here or on misc@openbsd.org. Do read the FAQ, archives,
    afterboot(8), and any other relevant man pages first (man -k may be
    helpful). OpenBSD has very good documentation.

  3. Re: A Few Noob Questions.

    On Fri, 09 May 2008 02:35:49 +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:

    > Tammy Lyn wrote:
    >> 1...My sound card is detected and works, however programs like
    >> Xmms/Amarok will not allow me to use their volume controls, I'm limited
    >> to the speaker volume controls. Both programs play and work fine but I
    >> can't use the programs volume/equalizer controls.

    >
    > This is sound card specific, if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure
    > someone will be along to help you with this; if not, try posting a
    > dmesg.


    Ok. Thanks..

    >> 2...Xorg is listening on port 6000. I don't need or want that. How to
    >> disable?

    >
    > It doesn't actually accept data from anywhere unless you change things
    > with xhost(1) and the like. In short, this is harmless.


    Cool.

    > The way to stop this is passing -nolisten tcp to the X binary (see
    > Xserver(8)). How to do this will likely vary depending on how you start
    > X (usually xinit or startx). This might break stuff, though.
    >
    > If you're really paranoid, you're better off configuring pf to block
    > access.



    I'm behind a router and the "Shields Up" test show no open ports.
    Everything is stealth. https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

    Do I still need PF?

    >> 3...'netstat -an' is showing my computer is listening on several ports
    >> by default. How to disable sendmail etc?

    >
    > sendmail(8) doesn't accept data from outside either, at least not by
    > default. See afterboot(8), under "Sendmail".


    So it's okay to run sendmail for security reports etc?
    What about syslogd?
    On FreeBSD

    syslogd_enable="YES"
    syslogd_program="/usr/sbin/syslogd"
    syslogd_flags="-ss"

    syslogd_flags="-ss" will stop outside connections.
    Does openbsd's syslog allow incoming connections?


    > sshd(8) is also listening; make sure you either have a strong password
    > for all relevant accounts or disallow password logins altogether.


    I don't need sshd. How to disable? /etc/rc.conf sshd_enable=NO?

    > The rest are run by inetd(8), see /etc/inetd.conf.


    Since this is a desktop system. I can disable inetd?
    I don't want any incoming connections to my computer from the outside. No telnet/sshd etc.

    A fresh OpenBSD install disable these incoming connection by default unless you allow them?

    > Relax. OpenBSD is secure by default.


    Yes, that's why I chose it. My problem is that I don't know how to tweak the system
    to make it secure. Jails/ and mandatory access control etc.

    > P.S. What's with wrapping at 113 columns or some such nonsense? A
    > classical terminal is 80 characters wide, so wrap at 72 columns or less
    > to allow for some follow-ups.
    > P.P.S. Welcome to OpenBSD! Feel free to post any questions you have
    > either here or on misc@openbsd.org. Do read the FAQ, archives,
    > afterboot(8), and any other relevant man pages first (man -k may be
    > helpful). OpenBSD has very good documentation.


    Sorry about the word wrap. I was using the default word wrap in PAN.
    Hope I got that fixed.

    Thanks for your help.

  4. Re: A Few Noob Questions.

    Tammy Lyn wrote:
    > On Fri, 09 May 2008 02:35:49 +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >> Tammy Lyn wrote:
    >>> 2...Xorg is listening on port 6000. I don't (...) want that.

    >>
    >> It doesn't (...) accept data (...). [It] is harmless.


    > Cool.


    > I'm behind a router and the "Shields Up" test show no open ports.


    > Do I still need PF?


    No, you almost never need pf unless you are building a firewall. (Not
    a ZoneAlarm-style "host-based firewall" - a real firewall.)

    >>> 3...'netstat -an' is showing my computer is listening on several ports
    >>> by default. How to disable sendmail etc?

    >>
    >> sendmail(8) doesn't accept data (...) by default.

    >
    > So it's okay to run sendmail for security reports etc?
    > What about syslogd?
    > On FreeBSD
    >
    > syslogd_enable="YES"
    > syslogd_program="/usr/sbin/syslogd"
    > syslogd_flags="-ss"
    >
    > syslogd_flags="-ss" will stop outside connections.
    > Does openbsd's syslog allow incoming connections?


    Yes, you will need to run sendmail to receive security reports and cron
    output and the like. You can configure it to send to an external
    mailserver, called a "smarthost" in sendmail terminology, but you'll
    have to look the details up yourself - I never used sendmail.
    Configuration files are under /usr/share/sendmail/cf.

    syslogd(8) will only accept data from outside if you add "-u" to
    syslogd_flags in /etc/rc.conf.local. (By convention, /etc/rc.conf holds
    the defaults and a little documentation, and /etc/rc.conf.local holds
    any local settings. This is analogous to how /etc/rc is the default
    start script and /etc/rc.local holds local additions.)

    >> sshd(8) is also listening; make sure you either have a strong password
    >> for all relevant accounts or disallow password logins altogether.

    >
    > I don't need sshd. How to disable? /etc/rc.conf sshd_enable=NO?


    sshd_flags=NO in /etc/rc.conf.local.

    >> The rest are run by inetd(8), see /etc/inetd.conf.

    >
    > Since this is a desktop system. I can disable inetd?
    > I don't want any incoming connections to my computer from the outside. No telnet/sshd etc.
    >
    > A fresh OpenBSD install disable these incoming connection by default unless you allow them?


    Yes, you can disable inetd without problems. inetd=NO in
    /etc/rc.conf.local.

    By default, OpenBSD enables three services in /etc/inetd.conf

    $ grep '^[^\#]' /etc/inetd.conf
    ident stream tcp nowait _identd /usr/libexec/identd identd -el
    ident stream tcp6 nowait _identd /usr/libexec/identd identd -el
    daytime stream tcp nowait root internal
    daytime stream tcp6 nowait root internal
    time stream tcp nowait root internal
    time stream tcp6 nowait root internal

    identd can be used by external services to request which user opened a
    connection. It is an old protocol. A few mail servers require it if you
    want to send them messages (directly; you can always send mail via your
    ISP or another mail service). Additionally, it is used by IRC.

    You can add -h or -H (which hide information) or disable identd
    altogether. It is pretty much only used in the above two cases, so feel
    free to disable it.

    daytime and time simply report the time. They are harmless, and can be
    disabled without harm.

    >> Relax. OpenBSD is secure by default.

    >
    > Yes, that's why I chose it. My problem is that I don't know how to
    > tweak the system to make it secure. Jails/ and mandatory access
    > control etc.


    Very little tweaking is required unless you install (a lot) of
    additional packages. The system is well-audited, presents few surfaces
    for attack, and most important daemons run in a jail by default. (Apache
    httpd and named, for instance.)
    If you do install external packages, try to select secure packages and
    configure them accordingly.

    If, at some point, you do need to jail something, ktrace(1) can be
    useful if it doesn't work. It shows you all system calls (filesystem
    interactions etc) and their results, which can help in finding out that
    some program tries to read a file you hadn't thought of. It can be
    pretty verbose - grep for file-like things or system calls like open.

    OpenBSD does not have a functional mandatory access control framework at
    this time: securelevel 2 (see securelevel(7)) works as documented, but
    there are quite a few ways around the documented functionality, and
    systrace(8) is mostly functional but there are some rare cases in which
    it is possible to alter the parameters of a system call after the system
    call has been allowed by the systrace ruleset. In short, either have a
    lot of limitations.
    This is not seen as a big problem by most of the community - OpenBSD has
    a secure kernel running secure binaries, and all of the standard *nix
    security:
    - pretty much each daemon has its own uid
    - chroot() is used where appropriate
    - many daemons that both interact with the network and need (root)
    privileges have been implemented as two parts, one of which has no
    privileges and one of which does not talk to the network. (Look at "ps
    ax | grep ntpd" for an example, if you are running ntpd(8).)
    - the base system, including external packages like httpd and named, has
    been audited and secured as appopriate.

    In addition, OpenBSD has some tricks that make it harder to exploit
    common vulnerabilities (W^X, ProPolice, etc).

    This is not OpenBSD-specific, but you should consider using sudo(8) for
    almost all system administration tasks, instead of logging in as root or
    su(8). Other than that, you are already pretty secure. Even swap is
    encrypted by default! (Useful to make sure passwords etc. never touch
    the disk.)

    > Sorry about the word wrap. I was using the default word wrap in PAN.
    > Hope I got that fixed.


    Yes, you did. Thanks! And good luck, let us know if you have any more
    trouble.

    Joachim

  5. Re: A Few Noob Questions.

    Joachim Schipper wrote:
    > Tammy Lyn wrote:
    >> I don't want any incoming connections to my computer from the outside. No telnet/sshd etc.


    >> Sorry about the word wrap. I was using the default word wrap in PAN.
    >> Hope I got that fixed.

    >
    > Yes, you did. Thanks! And good luck, let us know if you have any more
    > trouble.


    Whoops, you only "mostly" did that. In your defence, I hit 'send' before
    I noticed that I, too, had done it wrong.

    Flame away!

    Joachim

  6. Re: A Few Noob Questions.

    On Fri, 9 May 2008 04:48:43 +0200 (CEST),
    Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >> I'm behind a router and the "Shields Up" test show no open ports.
    >> Do I still need PF?

    >
    > No, you almost never need pf unless you are building a firewall. (Not
    > a ZoneAlarm-style "host-based firewall" - a real firewall.)


    Just to clarify: on a certain not to be taken seriously but despite
    that widely (ab)used software platform, it turns out to be quite hard
    to turn off unwanted services. Doing so anyway can cause all sorts of
    side effects and nagging popups with conflicting messages, so the poor
    uneducated user usually is beaten into not securing his machine.

    ``Firewalls'' have been touted as a solve-all for this. They're not, of
    course, as the poor reporting and (again) uneducated user causes ``GWF''
    syndrome. (Look up the ``GWF'' term. We've seen a few here also.)

    Most modern unices are fine without a firewall, as long as you take care
    and you know what you're doing.

    There may still be reasons to use kernel level packet filtering, but it
    is not a sine qua non of connecting a unix to the network. In fact, if
    you have a working firewall configured ``in front'' of your machine,
    it becomes desirable to not need yet another firewall due to the extra
    maintenance.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  7. Re: A Few Noob Questions.

    Hi!

    Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >Tammy Lyn wrote:
    >> 1...My sound card is detected and works, however programs like
    >> Xmms/Amarok will not allow me to use their volume controls, I'm
    >> limited to the speaker volume controls. Both programs play and work
    >> fine but I can't use the programs volume/equalizer controls.


    >This is sound card specific, if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure
    >someone will be along to help you with this; if not, try posting a
    >dmesg.


    Right, for my sound card, mixer controls work (it's a "Ensoniq
    AudioPCI97"). I usually control them with xmix (I'm old fashioned, you
    see).

    You get the relevant lines by opening /var/run/dmesg.boot, looking for
    the line "audio0 at ..." (or if you have multiple audio cards, it might
    also read audio1 at ... etc.). Then look backwards for the device name
    following at.

    My example is:

    audio0 at eap0

    Ok, looking backwards for eap0 at ...:

    eap0 at pci0 dev 15 function 0 "Ensoniq AudioPCI97" rev 0x06: irq 11

    ok, I can look forward after eap0 for a few bits of additional
    information: the next two lines read like this:

    ac97: codec id 0x43525913 (Cirrus Logic CS4297A rev 3)
    ac97: codec features headphone, 20 bit DAC, 18 bit ADC, Crystal Semi 3D

    In this case, the manual page (eap(4)) doesn't explicitly say that mixer
    controls are supported quite well.

    I used to have a gus(4), where mixer controls wouldn't work, volume
    controls were at maximum always and I had to control the playback volume
    at the stereo amplifier the soundcard was connected to.

    >> 2...Xorg is listening on port 6000. I don't need or want that. How to
    >> disable?


    >It doesn't actually accept data from anywhere unless you change things
    >with xhost(1) and the like. In short, this is harmless.


    >The way to stop this is passing -nolisten tcp to the X binary (see
    >Xserver(8)). How to do this will likely vary depending on how you start
    >X (usually xinit or startx). This might break stuff, though.


    I don't think it will, but I don't bother either.

    >If you're really paranoid, you're better off configuring pf to block
    >access.


    I did:
    block in quick on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port 5999 >< 6011

    (In a policy that allows only selected ports below 1024, blocks selected
    ports >= 1024 and allows everything else >= 1024).

    >> 3...'netstat -an' is showing my computer is listening on several ports
    >> by default. How to disable sendmail etc?


    >sendmail(8) doesn't accept data from outside either, at least not by
    >default. See afterboot(8), under "Sendmail".


    Dito, for being doubly safe, pf helps.

    >sshd(8) is also listening; make sure you either have a strong password
    >for all relevant accounts or disallow password logins altogether.


    *nods* And sometimes it's useful (together with dyndns) :-)

    >[...]


    >P.S. What's with wrapping at 113 columns or some such nonsense? A
    >classical terminal is 80 characters wide, so wrap at 72 columns or less
    >to allow for some follow-ups.


    The maximum line length of the original posting was 78 (question 2) in
    my eyes. Not optimal, but not 113.

    >[...]


    Kind regards,

    Hannah.

  8. Re: A Few Noob Questions.

    Hi!

    Tammy Lyn wrote:
    >[...]


    >> The way to stop this is passing -nolisten tcp to the X binary (see
    >> Xserver(8)). How to do this will likely vary depending on how you start
    >> X (usually xinit or startx). This might break stuff, though.


    >> If you're really paranoid, you're better off configuring pf to block
    >> access.


    >I'm behind a router and the "Shields Up" test show no open ports.
    >Everything is stealth. https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2


    >Do I still need PF?


    I don't think so (either). Except if you want to learn pf (out of pure
    interest or whatever). :-)

    >>> 3...'netstat -an' is showing my computer is listening on several ports
    >>> by default. How to disable sendmail etc?


    >> sendmail(8) doesn't accept data from outside either, at least not by
    >> default. See afterboot(8), under "Sendmail".


    >So it's okay to run sendmail for security reports etc?


    Right, you need it for local mail to work and local mail is used for
    daily/weekly/monthly reports to root (you can divert it by filling in
    the appropriate aliases in /etc/mail/aliases; if you do so, don't forget
    to run newaliases).

    >What about syslogd?
    >On FreeBSD


    >syslogd_enable="YES"
    >syslogd_program="/usr/sbin/syslogd"
    >syslogd_flags="-ss"


    >syslogd_flags="-ss" will stop outside connections.
    >Does openbsd's syslog allow incoming connections?


    OpenBSD syslogd *does* bind udp 514 (syslogd), but drops everything that
    comes in, unless you explicitly tell it to record it (option -u, see
    syslogd's manual page).

    The manual page says about the socket:
    syslogd opens an Internet domain socket as specified in /etc/services.
    Normally syslogd will only use this socket to send messages outwards, but
    in ``insecure'' mode it will also read messages from this socket.

    >> sshd(8) is also listening; make sure you either have a strong password
    >> for all relevant accounts or disallow password logins altogether.


    >I don't need sshd. How to disable? /etc/rc.conf sshd_enable=NO?


    Use /etc/rc.conf.local for your settings. Add sshd_flags=NO there.
    I've found remote access to my home box useful sometimes, however, but
    of course YMMV. If you're sure you'll never need remote access,
    disabling sshd may be fine.

    >> The rest are run by inetd(8), see /etc/inetd.conf.


    >Since this is a desktop system. I can disable inetd?
    >I don't want any incoming connections to my computer from the outside.
    >No telnet/sshd etc.


    For some applications you might want at least identd to work (e.g. some
    IRC chat servers like identd). If so you might rather want to continue
    running inetd, but comment everything but identd out from /etc/inetd.conf.
    If you really want to disable inetd, use identd_flags=NO in
    /etc/rc.conf.local.

    > A fresh OpenBSD install disable these incoming connection by default
    >unless you allow them?


    There're some (quite few) connections that are enabled by default, see
    the stock /etc/inetd.conf (you may save it for reference, or extract it
    from the etc43.tgz set later, if you need the reference again).

    >> Relax. OpenBSD is secure by default.


    >Yes, that's why I chose it. My problem is that I don't know how to tweak
    >the system
    >to make it secure. Jails/ and mandatory access control etc.


    I don't think you need to tweak so much. Jails are for when you have
    multiple users, or network services, and want to heavily restrict the
    local rights some have.

    I think, for desktop use, the most important thing is, do your daily
    stuff as non-root user and become root (using su or sudo) only if it's
    really needed for some maintenance task.

    >[...]


    Kind regards,

    Hannah.

  9. Re: A Few Noob Questions.

    On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:33 +0000, Tammy Lyn wrote:


    > I'm behind a router and the "Shields Up" test show no open ports.
    > Everything is stealth. https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
    >
    > Do I still need PF?


    you might try running nmap against your router from a machine on the net
    and compare its results against the grc report...that might be more
    reassuring


  10. Re: [OT] line lengths [was: A Few Noob Questions.]

    Hannah Schroeter wrote:
    > Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >>P.S. What's with wrapping at 113 columns or some such nonsense? A
    >>classical terminal is 80 characters wide, so wrap at 72 columns or less
    >>to allow for some follow-ups.

    >
    > The maximum line length of the original posting was 78 (question 2) in
    > my eyes. Not optimal, but not 113.


    I'm fairly certain there's some wrapping going on then. How long is this
    line for you?

    abcdefghi acbdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghij

    I see one long (110-column) line.

    Joachim

    P.S. I am sorry not to add more content, but I'm afraid I'm out of good
    tips. Sorry...

  11. Re: [OT] line lengths [was: A Few Noob Questions.]

    On 2008-05-10, Joachim Schipper wrote:
    > Hannah Schroeter wrote:
    >> Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >>>P.S. What's with wrapping at 113 columns or some such nonsense? A
    >>>classical terminal is 80 characters wide, so wrap at 72 columns or less
    >>>to allow for some follow-ups.

    >>
    >> The maximum line length of the original posting was 78 (question 2) in
    >> my eyes. Not optimal, but not 113.

    >
    > I'm fairly certain there's some wrapping going on then. How long is this
    > line for you?
    >
    > abcdefghi acbdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghij
    >
    > I see one long (110-column) line.


    And that is what I get too. I had to stretch out the window to
    capture it un-folded on the display.

    There are too many usenet and e-mail clients out there which
    wrap on the sender's display without actually wrapping the sent text.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.

    --
    Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

  12. Re: [OT] line lengths [was: A Few Noob Questions.]

    Begin
    On 10 May 2008 03:15:49 GMT, DoN. Nichols wrote:
    > And that is what I get too. I had to stretch out the window to
    > capture it un-folded on the display.


    My client allows for wrapping (under a key, off by default) but I
    usually skip over posts as soon as I notice they have this problem.


    > There are too many usenet and e-mail clients out there which
    > wrap on the sender's display without actually wrapping the sent text.


    True. It's why format=flowed (RFC2646) exists. Pretty sure pan can be
    taught to behave reasonably, though.

    I think that usenet posts should come with reasonable line lengths of no
    more than 80 (so use 72 to allow for quoting), obey the 4x80 rule, and
    a couple more of the usual things. In fact, that is how I prefer emails
    too, and I do ignore non-adherent emails if I can get away with it.

    The OP should fix the relevant config, and perhaps learn how to apply
    fmt or par or something to that tune. Most people here make the effort
    to come up with readable posts, and the (small) extra effort clearly is
    worth it. If you need more rationale, EWD1300 may provide some insights.


    Is this the wrong time to idly mention in general that trimming of
    quotes, especially when only adding a comment at the end, is also a good
    thing? This seems as good an opportunity as any. ;-)


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  13. Re: [OT] line lengths [was: A Few Noob Questions.]

    Hi!

    Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >Hannah Schroeter wrote:
    >> Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >>>P.S. What's with wrapping at 113 columns or some such nonsense? A
    >>>classical terminal is 80 characters wide, so wrap at 72 columns or less
    >>>to allow for some follow-ups.


    >> The maximum line length of the original posting was 78 (question 2) in
    >> my eyes. Not optimal, but not 113.


    >I'm fairly certain there's some wrapping going on then. How long is this
    >line for you?


    >abcdefghi acbdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi
    >abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghij


    >I see one long (110-column) line.


    I see two lines (69 and 40).

    Seems your user agent pastes them together somehow.

    > Joachim


    >P.S. I am sorry not to add more content, but I'm afraid I'm out of good
    >tips. Sorry...


    Kind regards,

    Hannah.

  14. Re: [OT] line lengths [was: A Few Noob Questions.]

    Hi!

    DoN. Nichols wrote:
    >On 2008-05-10, Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >> Hannah Schroeter wrote:
    >>> Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >>>>P.S. What's with wrapping at 113 columns or some such nonsense? A
    >>>>classical terminal is 80 characters wide, so wrap at 72 columns or less
    >>>>to allow for some follow-ups.


    >>> The maximum line length of the original posting was 78 (question 2) in
    >>> my eyes. Not optimal, but not 113.


    >> I'm fairly certain there's some wrapping going on then. How long is this
    >> line for you?


    >> abcdefghi acbdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi

    >abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghij


    >> I see one long (110-column) line.


    > And that is what I get too. I had to stretch out the window to
    >capture it un-folded on the display.


    > There are too many usenet and e-mail clients out there which
    >wrap on the sender's display without actually wrapping the sent text.


    Mine definitely does *not* (trn, which is quite simplistic, especially
    when quoting).

    > Enjoy,
    > DoN.


    Kind regards,

    Hannah.

  15. Re: [OT] line lengths [was: A Few Noob Questions.]

    Hi!

    Hannah Schroeter wrote:
    >DoN. Nichols wrote:
    >>On 2008-05-10, Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >>> Hannah Schroeter wrote:
    >>>> Joachim Schipper wrote:
    >>>>>P.S. What's with wrapping at 113 columns or some such nonsense? A
    >>>>>classical terminal is 80 characters wide, so wrap at 72 columns or less
    >>>>>to allow for some follow-ups.


    >>>> The maximum line length of the original posting was 78 (question 2) in
    >>>> my eyes. Not optimal, but not 113.


    >>> I'm fairly certain there's some wrapping going on then. How long is this
    >>> line for you?


    >>> abcdefghi acbdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi acbdefghi abcdefghi

    >>abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghi abcdefghij


    >>> I see one long (110-column) line.


    >> And that is what I get too. I had to stretch out the window to
    >>capture it un-folded on the display.


    >> There are too many usenet and e-mail clients out there which
    >>wrap on the sender's display without actually wrapping the sent text.


    >Mine definitely does *not* (trn, which is quite simplistic, especially
    >when quoting).


    Ehm. I have to correct myself. trn *was* the culprit, at least this
    build of trn. *rolls eyes* When I looked at the save file, it was *one*
    long line indeed.

    Sorry for the inconvenience.

    Kind regards,

    Hannah.

+ Reply to Thread