Re: [OT] Re: AVI stream
LOL dude! :) If u think I was calling anyone a thief u read something that I didn't type. The idea of what is thievery or allowed use rests solely in the mind of his customers. In this arena whatever *they* say goes. Forgive me if I used overly colloquial meanings of steal and thief. :) At 08:54 AM 3/19/02 +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: >Hi, > >I really object to the idea that I am a "thief" if I want to view the >streamed content again, or show it to my wife, or if I want to convert >it to format Foo for display with player Bar which I happen to like a >lot. > -- REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=-- 0100 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: AVI stream
Hi, On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Chris Wagner wrote: > The idea of what is thievery or allowed use rests solely in the mind > of his customers. Well, that's exactly the attitude I'm objecting to! Sure, they have as much right to try and stop me doing things they don't want as I have the right to actually do them, but that doesn't make these things 'thievery' or 'illegal'. Whether something is 'stealing' depends on *law*, and is not determined by his customers or any other publisher. Unless of course the publishers determine the law, which is indeed what seems to be happening in some places of the world. > In this arena whatever *they* say goes. Not when we're talking about what's criminal and what's not. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153| http://www.e-advies.info -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: AVI stream
At 09:29 AM 3/19/02 +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: >> In this arena whatever *they* say goes. > >Not when we're talking about what's criminal and what's not. Yes, that's true, but is irrelevant for his situation. His web hosts are coming to him saying "we want X". Whatever X is, whether that's streaming video people can't copy, etc, he has to provide that or they walk. That's why discussions of rightness or wrongness in these situations is moot. -- REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=-- 0100 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrading just one "stable" package to "testing" version
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 05:17 AM, Jason Lim wrote: > > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 21:11:20 +1100, Toby Thain wrote: >>> spaz:~# apt-get update >> >>> spaz:~# apt-get install apt >>> Reading Package Lists... Done >>> Building Dependency Tree... Done >>> Sorry, apt is already the newest version >>> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not > upgraded. >> >> That's strange. Stable has apt 0.3.19; testing has apt 0.5.4. This > should >> have worked. Perhaps apt is among the "5 not upgrade" packages, for >> some >> reason? You could work around this by installing the new apt (and its >> dependencies) through "dpkg". >> > > There is a simple way... do apt-get -v > > What is the output? What version does it report? spaz:~# apt-get -v apt 0.3.19 for i386 compiled on May 12 2000 21:17:27 spaz:~# > > Then we'll know all. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: AVI stream
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Chris Wagner wrote: > At 09:29 AM 3/19/02 +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > >> In this arena whatever *they* say goes. > > > >Not when we're talking about what's criminal and what's not. > > Yes, that's true, but is irrelevant for his situation. His web hosts are > coming to him saying "we want X". Whatever X is, whether that's streaming > video people can't copy, etc, he has to provide that or they walk. That's > why discussions of rightness or wrongness in these situations is moot. Sure. That's also why I said that they have as much right to try and stop me doing things they don't want as I have the right to actually do them. But let's not forget the last part. :) Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153| http://www.e-advies.info -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrading just one "stable" package to "testing" version
Your sources.list must not be correct then, or something is fubared somewhere. Try this... rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/* then make SURE /etc/apt/sources.list is correct. Then update the package list, and try and get dpkg first, then apt. That should work. Let us all know the result. - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:59 PM Subject: Re: upgrading just one "stable" package to "testing" version > > On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 05:17 AM, Jason Lim wrote: > > > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 21:11:20 +1100, Toby Thain wrote: > >>> spaz:~# apt-get update > >> > >>> spaz:~# apt-get install apt > >>> Reading Package Lists... Done > >>> Building Dependency Tree... Done > >>> Sorry, apt is already the newest version > >>> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not > > upgraded. > >> > >> That's strange. Stable has apt 0.3.19; testing has apt 0.5.4. This > > should > >> have worked. Perhaps apt is among the "5 not upgrade" packages, for > >> some > >> reason? You could work around this by installing the new apt (and its > >> dependencies) through "dpkg". > >> > > > > There is a simple way... do apt-get -v > > > > What is the output? What version does it report? > > spaz:~# apt-get -v > apt 0.3.19 for i386 compiled on May 12 2000 21:17:27 > spaz:~# > > > > > > Then we'll know all. > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems tirying to setup a pptp server begin a firewall
Hi all, I'm triying to do the next setup ... Inet <-> Sid FW (Pc1,eth1-inet,eth0-lan) <-> Sid PPTPd (Pc2,eth0-lan) On the PC1 I have done this iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p gre -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 1723 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2 Along other rules that don't get into colission with this ones When I try to make a conx from a WinXX machine with the VPN support (pptp), It connect (I saw the pptpd launching the pppd on the PC2), and there is GRE traffic (tcpdump -i eth0 proto gre; on pc2 show that), but the WinXX machine allway stay saing "Checking username and password" till it get a timeout. Appart from a possible problem with the pptpd/pppd config, are this rules OK to *forward* such kind of traffic from the FW to the internal server ? Thx in advance -- _ _ // Raúl A. Betancort Santana/> A Dream is an answer to __ \\ // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // question that we don't know (oo) \\ // Dimensión Virtual S.L. // how to ask. / \/ \ // \> A Linux Solution Provider msg05807/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Problems tirying to setup a pptp server begin a firewall
Hi all, I'm triying to do the next setup ... Inet <-> Sid FW (Pc1,eth1-inet,eth0-lan) <-> Sid PPTPd (Pc2,eth0-lan) On the PC1 I have done this iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p gre -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 1723 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2 Along other rules that don't get into colission with this ones When I try to make a conx from a WinXX machine with the VPN support (pptp), It connect (I saw the pptpd launching the pppd on the PC2), and there is GRE traffic (tcpdump -i eth0 proto gre; on pc2 show that), but the WinXX machine allway stay saing "Checking username and password" till it get a timeout. Appart from a possible problem with the pptpd/pppd config, are this rules OK to *forward* such kind of traffic from the FW to the internal server ? Thx in advance -- _ _ // Raúl A. Betancort Santana/> A Dream is an answer to __ \\ // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // question that we don't know (oo) \\ // Dimensión Virtual S.L. // how to ask. / \/ \ // \> A Linux Solution Provider msg05808/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Problems triying to setup a PPTP server begin a Sid firewall
Hi all, I'm triying to do the next setup ... Inet <-> Sid FW (Pc1,eth1-inet,eth0-lan) <-> Sid PPTPd (Pc2,eth0-lan) On the PC1 I have done this iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p gre -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 1723 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2 Along other rules that don't get into colission with this ones When I try to make a conx from a WinXX machine with the VPN support (pptp), It connect (I saw the pptpd launching the pppd on the PC2), and there is GRE traffic (tcpdump -i eth0 proto gre; on pc2 show that), but the WinXX machine allway stay saing "Checking username and password" till it get a timeout. Appart from a possible problem with the pptpd/pppd config, are this rules OK to *forward* such kind of traffic from the FW to the internal server ? Thx in advance -- _ _ // Raúl A. Betancort Santana/> A Dream is an answer to __ \\ // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // question that we don't know (oo) \\ // Dimensión Virtual S.L. // how to ask. / \/ \ // \> A Linux Solution Provider msg05809/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Problems tirying to setup a pptp server begin a firewall
Hi, On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Raúl Alexis Betancort Santana wrote: > Hi all, I'm triying to do the next setup ... > > Inet <-> Sid FW (Pc1,eth1-inet,eth0-lan) <-> Sid PPTPd (Pc2,eth0-lan) > > On the PC1 I have done this > > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p gre -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2 > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 1723 -j DNAT --to > 192.168.0.2 > > Along other rules that don't get into colission with this ones > > When I try to make a conx from a WinXX machine with the VPN support > (pptp), It connect (I saw the pptpd launching the pppd on the PC2), > and there is GRE traffic (tcpdump -i eth0 proto gre; on pc2 show > that), but the WinXX machine allway stay saing "Checking username and > password" till it get a timeout. > > Appart from a possible problem with the pptpd/pppd config, are this > rules OK to *forward* such kind of traffic from the FW to the internal > server ? Have you checked whether GRE traffic in the other direction is allowed as well by PC1? Also, what is pppd doing with the incoming traffic? Turn pppd debugging on and see if it actually receives the PPP LCP packets from the client. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153| http://www.e-advies.info -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems tirying to setup a pptp server begin a firewall
El Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:19:28AM +0100, Emile van Bergen escribió: > Have you checked whether GRE traffic in the other direction is allowed > as well by PC1? It's not blocked, I have also triyed to MASQ it doing this iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.2 -p gre -i eth0 -j MASQUERADE > Also, what is pppd doing with the incoming traffic? Turn pppd debugging > on and see if it actually receives the PPP LCP packets from the client. Mar 15 01:17:20 nuria pptpd[27580]: CTRL: Client XXX.XX.XXX.XX control connection started Mar 15 01:17:20 nuria pptpd[27580]: CTRL: Starting call (launching pppd, opening GRE) Mar 15 01:17:20 nuria pptpd[27580]: CTRL: Client XXX.XX.XXX.XX control connection finished Mar 15 01:21:22 nuria pptpd[5030]: CTRL: Client XXX.XX.XXX.XX control connection started Mar 15 01:21:23 nuria pptpd[5030]: CTRL: Starting call (launching pppd, opening GRE) Mar 15 01:21:23 nuria pptpd[5030]: CTRL: Client XXX.XX.XXX.XX control connection finished Umm just odd, pptpd logs, but not pppd ones, umm .. any way to check if pptpd it's really launching the pppd ? Thx -- _ _ // Raúl A. Betancort Santana/> A Dream is an answer to __ \\ // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // question that we don't know (oo) \\ // Dimensión Virtual S.L. // how to ask. / \/ \ // \> A Linux Solution Provider msg05811/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mail Servers
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:18, Jason Lim wrote: > > RAID is mandatory for a mail server. Backups are difficult for mail > > servers > > > as the data is changing all the time, and they'll never be complete. > > > > Having a single drive failure lose all your data is unacceptable. > > Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often > people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where mail is > stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients (software, > i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they would notice > is they are not getting any new mail for a short while (while you fix the There's worse, mail that has been delivered before the crash but after the last time the user checked mail or the administrator make a backup will be lost. > Everyone hates those ultra long *confidentiality, security, legal, blah > blah* sigs. I wonder what the best, short, clear, legalistic sig is. > Obviously not for sending to a mail list, but for individual > emails. Best to write a short note yourself if the message has some special requirements. The only boiler-plate disclaimer that'sany good is the "I am representing my own opinions not those of my employer" line. -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrading just one "stable" package to "testing" version
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 08:19 PM, Jason Lim wrote: > Your sources.list must not be correct then, or something is fubared > somewhere. > > Try this... > > rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/* There is no /var/lib/apt/lists/ directory. > > then make SURE /etc/apt/sources.list is correct. the only non-comment lines are: deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main contrib non-free deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free > > Then update the package list, and try and get dpkg first, then apt. > > That should work. Let us all know the result. spaz:/etc/apt# ls -ld /var/lib/apt/lists/ ls: /var/lib/apt/lists/: No such file or directory spaz:/etc/apt# apt-get update Get:1 http://non-us.debian.org testing/non-US/main Packages [91.9kB] Get:2 http://non-us.debian.org testing/non-US/main Release [88B] Hit http://non-us.debian.org testing/non-US/contrib Packages Get:3 http://non-us.debian.org testing/non-US/contrib Release [91B] Hit http://non-us.debian.org testing/non-US/non-free Packages Get:4 http://non-us.debian.org testing/non-US/non-free Release [92B] Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/main Sources Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/main Release Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/contrib Sources Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/contrib Release Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/non-free Sources Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/non-free Release Fetched 92.1kB in 7s (13.0kB/s) Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done spaz:/etc/apt# apt-get install dpkg Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Sorry, dpkg is already the newest version 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded. spaz:/etc/apt# apt-get install apt Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Sorry, apt is already the newest version 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded. spaz:/etc/apt# cat /etc/apt/preferences Package: * Pin: release a=stable spaz:/etc/apt# > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Toby Thain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:59 PM > Subject: Re: upgrading just one "stable" package to "testing" version > > >> >> On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 05:17 AM, Jason Lim wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 21:11:20 +1100, Toby Thain wrote: > spaz:~# apt-get update > spaz:~# apt-get install apt > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > Sorry, apt is already the newest version > 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not >>> upgraded. That's strange. Stable has apt 0.3.19; testing has apt 0.5.4. This >>> should have worked. Perhaps apt is among the "5 not upgrade" packages, for some reason? You could work around this by installing the new apt (and its dependencies) through "dpkg". >>> >>> There is a simple way... do apt-get -v >>> >>> What is the output? What version does it report? >> >> spaz:~# apt-get -v >> apt 0.3.19 for i386 compiled on May 12 2000 21:17:27 >> spaz:~# >> >> >>> >>> Then we'll know all. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrading just one "stable" package to "testing" version
> > Try this... > > > > rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/* > > There is no /var/lib/apt/lists/ directory. Thats weird. That is where the package lists are suppose to be. Hum... maybe your apt is fubared. > > > > then make SURE /etc/apt/sources.list is correct. > > the only non-comment lines are: > > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main > contrib non-free > deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main > contrib non-free > There is your second problem. Add deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib to it. > > > > Then update the package list, and try and get dpkg first, then apt. > > > > That should work. Let us all know the result. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrading just one "stable" package to "testing" version
If you just want single Packages from other versions of the distribution, without upgrading all the rest, you might be interested in http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2002/1/mail and adapting that to your needs. regards Alex -- "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." John Lennon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems tirying to setup a pptp server begin a firewall
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Raúl Alexis Betancort Santana wrote: > El Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:19:28AM +0100, Emile van Bergen escribió: > > Have you checked whether GRE traffic in the other direction is allowed > > as well by PC1? > > It's not blocked, I have also triyed to MASQ it doing this I'll believe you haven't blocked it explicitly, but have you checked using tcpdump that GRE response packets indeed appear on the outside ethernet of pc1? > Umm just odd, pptpd logs, but not pppd ones, umm .. any way to check > if pptpd it's really launching the pppd ? Try attaching a strace to pptpd. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153| http://www.e-advies.info -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> > Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often > > people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where mail is > > stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients (software, > > i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they would notice > > is they are not getting any new mail for a short while (while you fix the > > There's worse, mail that has been delivered before the crash but after the > last time the user checked mail or the administrator make a backup will be > lost. Well, true. I never said it was the best way... as you said, RAID is the ideal solution :-) > > Everyone hates those ultra long *confidentiality, security, legal, blah > > blah* sigs. I wonder what the best, short, clear, legalistic sig is. > > Obviously not for sending to a mail list, but for individual > > emails. > > Best to write a short note yourself if the message has some special > requirements. The only boiler-plate disclaimer that'sany good is the "I am > representing my own opinions not those of my employer" line. > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or something like that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> > Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often > > people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where mail is > > stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients (software, > > i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they would notice > > is they are not getting any new mail for a short while (while you fix the > > There's worse, mail that has been delivered before the crash but after the > last time the user checked mail or the administrator make a backup will be > lost. Well, true. I never said it was the best way... as you said, RAID is the ideal solution :-) > > Everyone hates those ultra long *confidentiality, security, legal, blah > > blah* sigs. I wonder what the best, short, clear, legalistic sig is. > > Obviously not for sending to a mail list, but for individual > > emails. > > Best to write a short note yourself if the message has some special > requirements. The only boiler-plate disclaimer that'sany good is the "I am > representing my own opinions not those of my employer" line. > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or something like that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46, Jason Lim wrote: > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want > that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or > something like that? Tough luck. If a representative of vendor for a project I'm working on sends me an email then I will forward it to my colleagues if it is appropriate. When at a meeting with a vendor I'll read their notes (I'm reasonably good at reading upside down). Some of my friends even take hidden tape recorders into meetings. These things only become an issue when you have a rival consulting company on site and they get a copy of the info. But the usual laws and contracts about non-disclosure are good enough to deal with such situations. A sig line really won't help. -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46, Jason Lim wrote: > > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want > > that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or > > something like that? > > Tough luck. > > If a representative of vendor for a project I'm working on sends me an email > then I will forward it to my colleagues if it is appropriate. When at a > meeting with a vendor I'll read their notes (I'm reasonably good at reading > upside down). Unfortunately that is one skill I have not yet perfected ;-) > Some of my friends even take hidden tape recorders into meetings. I thought that, legally, one would have to actually warn the person being recorded that a recording was taking place. I know that when I phone a number of large companies, they say specifically "this call is being monitored for quality assurance purposes" or "for training purposes" or something. I don't think it is legal for them to secretly record messages. But again, if it isn't done for malicious purposes... well... hum... its still debatable ;-) > > These things only become an issue when you have a rival consulting company on > site and they get a copy of the info. But the usual laws and contracts about > non-disclosure are good enough to deal with such situations. A sig line > really won't help. > But laws regarding email are still pretty shady at the moment... i would've thought a short statement like "This message is private and confidential" would at least help to clarify and make obvious the fact that you don't want people giving this information out to third parties (make that competitors and such), and allow a company to "more easily" enact any applicable non-disclosure laws. We certainly wouldn't want a client to sending the details of our private deal with them to a competitor or other clients. Imagine what would happen then! "Hey, you gave him 2U more space than us for the same price!" hehe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:37, Jason Lim wrote: > > Some of my friends even take hidden tape recorders into meetings. > > I thought that, legally, one would have to actually warn the person being > recorded that a recording was taking place. I know that when I phone a > number of large companies, they say specifically "this call is being > monitored for quality assurance purposes" or "for training purposes" or > something. I don't think it is legal for them to secretly record messages. > But again, if it isn't done for malicious purposes... well... hum... its > still debatable ;-) The use of a hidden recorder can only be considered as "malicious", unless you are the one with the recorder. > But laws regarding email are still pretty shady at the moment... i > would've thought a short statement like "This message is private and > confidential" would at least help to clarify and make obvious the fact > that you don't want people giving this information out to third parties > (make that competitors and such), and allow a company to "more easily" > enact any applicable non-disclosure laws. If it's added manually yes. If it's automatically appended to everything then it can be safely ignored. > We certainly wouldn't want a client to sending the details of our private > deal with them to a competitor or other clients. Imagine what would happen > then! "Hey, you gave him 2U more space than us for the same price!" hehe Well you need to have a specific clause in the contract if you want that to happen. But no-one sues their customers so as long as your customer pays their bills then you can't do anything about it. Best thing to do is tell them that you're giving them an extra good deal and that if they tell anyone then they get the "standard rate" next time. Tell that to every customer including the ones who pay more. ;) -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exim + POP3 + quota problems
At 11:21 PM 03/18/2002 +0100, Marcin Owsiany wrote: >On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:51:55PM -0500, Loren Jordan wrote: > > If you are able to re compile Qpopper, you can change the location of the > > .lock file as a compile option, just put it some where there is no > > quota checking. You will also need to adjust the configuration of your > MDA > > to watch for lock files in that new location. > >MDA or MTA, but also MUA... > > > I ran into this same problem > > a couple of years ago (when I worked at Qualcomm :). I was also > constantly > > having to repair the users mbox files because of corruptions in the > headers > > that would cause Qpopper to die. > >You mean when it didn't use right lockfiles? No, Qpopper or something else would cause minor glitches in the "^From: " header or the line before it would be missing (2 messages joined at the hip). If Qpopper would see an "un-escaped" From: header it would freak out and die. I was the only person reading mail locally on these servers... I used vi to fix these broken mbox files. I would touch the lock file manualy, vi the mbox file in question and then delete the lock file. > > There are a lot of compile time options that you can adjust and if you > just > > have to keep using it, do re-compile with the "server mode" enabled. I > > forget the exact name of that option but it keeps the users spool file > > copies to only 1 per session. This change alone brought the load on our > > mail servers down to less than 1.0. > >Right, but the manpage says I shouldn't use that mode if users also read >mail using MUAs. > > > I would recommend going with something like qmail (I like it more than > > anything else I have used) or any other pop server that supports > > Maildir. > >Actually I have to deal with qmail on another machine, and I prefer >exim... and it supports Maildir delivery as well, so I think I'll just >try to switch to it. I hope exim works for you, everybody should use the best tool that they prefer to use. One of these days, I will try to make an exim mail server but I have too many qmail servers running without requiring attention, it's more trouble to switch now. Loren >Marcin >-- >Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/ >GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216 > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reverse dns
hi, I have a problem I installed 2 new name servers ns1.asenacorp.net and ns2 but I can not look for their reverse information but my reverse information is ok I am sure. What should i do Could somebody help about me? Thanks, erol
Colorado Tape Backup Problems
Hello, I have an old Colorado Tap backup – floppy controller – that I've been trying to get working for sometime now. I have searched on the net for possible solutions but have been unsuccessful in finding information. I have installed debian’s ftape software and played with, but alas, I am unsuccessful. Does anyone have suggestions on this matter? I appreciate any ideas or suggestions. Sincerely, Daniel J. Rychlik " Money does not make the world go round , Gravity does ."
RAID 0 risky ?
Is RAID 0 that risky anymore for data storage (IMAP mail files) ? I figure that under normal wear and tear a drive should last about 5 years. Does this sound right ? I have 3 IBM SCSI 18GB drives. With RAID 0, I get 51.5GB of storage space. With RAID 5, I only get 37 GB of space with 20% wasted overhead. RAID 0 and RAID 1 are less work for the disk volume than RAID 5. So in an ideal world, volumes with RAID 0 or RAID 1 will last longer than volumes in RAID 5. Thus, it would be less risk to use RAID 0 or better RAID 1 than RAID 5. - Ted Knab -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID 0 risky ?
Technically speaking drives don't _wear_ out... Bad sectors are generated because at some time the disk surface has been damaged, usually by the heads hitting the disk. And many faults to do with the components on the controller board can be traced to a poor supply of power (eg spikes and brownouts, a UPS will help resolve this) Other than that, RAID 0 is more risky than a single drive as you have no fault tolerance (one drive fails and you lose all the data on al the drives), and you have three times the chance that one of the drives will bomb for whatever reason. Since it is for mail storage (an inherantly difficult data source to back up), I would say using RAID 0 would be a VERY bad idea, especially since you mention IMAP (eg mail stored on the server). If one drive fails every user you have loses their mail. I would think RAID 5 would be the better system to use in this instance. To follow you usage question a little. Lets assume you want to write 256k to the array. (We assume 64k block size for all arrays) In a RAID 0 situation the first drive would have 128k written and the other 2 would have 64k written to them. In RAID 1 (using 2 drives) each drive would have 256k written to them. In RAID 5, each drive would have 128k written. There would be 2 x 64k written to the 2 data drives, as well as another 128 on the parity drive (for this particular write). This is simplified but correct, from here we can see that RAID 1 would have the highest usage patterns per drive, next would be RAID5 and finally RAID 0. This is of course the price you pay for redundancy, you have to replicate the data somehow. RAID 5 obviously does the least replication while still keeping fault tolerance, although it does cost a small amount of computing power (not a problem if you have a RAID card) Hope this helps Dave At 00:09 20/03/2002 -0500, Thedore Knab wrote: >Is RAID 0 that risky anymore for data storage (IMAP mail files) ? > >I figure that under normal wear and tear a drive should last about 5 years. > >Does this sound right ? > >I have 3 IBM SCSI 18GB drives. > >With RAID 0, I get 51.5GB of storage space. >With RAID 5, I only get 37 GB of space with 20% wasted overhead. > >RAID 0 and RAID 1 are less work for the disk volume than RAID 5. > >So in an ideal world, volumes with RAID 0 or RAID 1 will last longer than >volumes in RAID 5. > >Thus, it would be less risk to use RAID 0 or better RAID 1 than RAID 5. > >- >Ted Knab > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID 0 risky ?
Thedore Knab wrote: > > Is RAID 0 that risky anymore for data storage (IMAP mail files) ? > > I figure that under normal wear and tear a drive should last about 5 years. > > Does this sound right ? > > I have 3 IBM SCSI 18GB drives. > > With RAID 0, I get 51.5GB of storage space. > With RAID 5, I only get 37 GB of space with 20% wasted overhead. > > RAID 0 and RAID 1 are less work for the disk volume than RAID 5. > > So in an ideal world, volumes with RAID 0 or RAID 1 will last longer than > volumes in RAID 5. No. In RAID 5, you can lose one drive, and still keep running. In RAID 0 (striped), the loss of one drive will kill your volume. Let's say the odds are 1 in 10 of a drive dying in a particular year. If you have 5 drives in RAID 0, you have a 50% chance of your volume crashing (well, that's probably not exactly right, but my statistics abilities are a little rusty). If you have 5 drives in RAID 5, you have a 50% chance of _one_ drive dying. I'm not sure that there's significantly less work for RAID 0 than RAID 5. RAID 1 will definately have less reads on any particular drive than the other two (approzimately 50% will go to one disk, 50% to the other), but will have greater writes (100% of writes will affect both disks on RAID 1, it's possible some writes will not affect every disk on RAID 5, I think). Since you're looking at IMAP mail files, the data is probably critical... too critical to trust in a single drive failure. You're probably most concerned with read performance (since users will notice lag in reading email... deleting messages can plod away just fine, writing to the mail files is done by the MDA). Take a look at how much space you need, or are likely to need in the future. If you need a lot of space I'd go with RAID 5. If you want to really push the read performance, buy another drive and go RAID 1. I'd stay away from RAID 0 unless it's fairly non-critical data, and if you really need the throughput. An example I can think of would be something like a web cache. > > Thus, it would be less risk to use RAID 0 or better RAID 1 than RAID 5. Absolutely not. RAID 0 is the highest risk. RAID 0 is actually higher risk than a single drive. --Rich _ Rich Puhek ETN Systems Inc. _ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
