One more question.
I am using following grub.conf.
title Linux Init Break
kernel /vmlinuz root=/dev/sda6 init=/bin/sh
initrd /initrd.gz
Control comes to the shell command prompt. But the filesystem I am seeing
is not initrd filesystem.
Is it possible to access initrd file system ?
Thanks
Sachin
This is pretty much a retorical question, although I would like to know the
extent of the problem and how quickly it's gonna be sorted.
My problem has already been described in a previous post, i.e. clamd fails
after a reboot.
The cause apparently is that /run and therefore /var/run has at some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26/08/15 10:28, Gary Stainburn wrote:
> This is pretty much a retorical question, although I would like to
> know the extent of the problem and how quickly it's gonna be
> sorted.
>
> My problem has already been described in a previous post, i.e.
>
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ..
On 8/25/2015 11:58 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:> Does Centos 7 use
/etc/sysconfig/network or is this replaced by some
> systemctl set of commands.
I let Network Manager control the interfaces on my two or three C7 boxes. I
used nmtui to set the hostname, and MAC and IP addresses (the MAC address
On 08/26/2015 09:14 AM, Chris Beattie wrote:
On 8/25/2015 11:58 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:> Does Centos 7 use
/etc/sysconfig/network or is this replaced by some
systemctl set of commands.
I let Network Manager control the interfaces on my two or three C7 boxes. I
used nmtui to set the hos
Hello Boris,
On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 15:59 -0400, Boris Epstein wrote:
> We have a Centos 6 VM (64 bit) running on a VMware vSphere 5.5 server. It
> was running just fine until one day I decided to reboot it and it just
> would not boot up. Effectively, dracut failed to initialize the LVM, much
> li
On Wed, August 26, 2015 1:12 am, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 25/08/15 23:09, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>> On 25/08/15 20:39, Alice Wonder wrote:
>>> julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com
>>
>>> Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content
>>
- Original Message -
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| Hash: SHA1
|
| On 25/08/15 23:09, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
| > On 25/08/15 20:39, Alice Wonder wrote:
| >> julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com
| >
| >> Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content
| >> that is not suit
On 8/26/2015 10:55 AM, James A. Peltier wrote:
I told my wife (yes awkward) that I thought that the list would be removing
content of this type (images), since likely it is of little value to the list
for helping people. I was shocked (for many reasons) that it is not.
the spammer was NOT em
On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> | Hash: SHA1
> |
> | On 25/08/15 23:09, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> | > On 25/08/15 20:39, Alice Wonder wrote:
> | >> julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com
> | >
> | >> Respo
On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote:
<<>>
something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will..
>> | >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com
loverhearts.com is a single page that seems to do nothing. and there i
On 08/26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote:
On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote:
<<>>
something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will..
| >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com
loverhearts.com is a single page t
On 08/26/15 14:29, Alice Wonder wrote:
<<>>
> If you look at the SPF record for loverhearts.com (where they are coming
> from for me) there are a whole slew of servers permitted to send on
> their behalf.
>
> So I took all those IP addresses specified and added them to my
> blacklist, it appe
On Wed, August 26, 2015 2:29 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
>
>
> On 08/26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote:
>> On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote:
>> <<>>
>> something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will..
| >> Received: from mx2.loverhe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26/08/15 20:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
>> MESSAGE- | Hash: SHA1 | | On 25/08/15 23:09, Fabian Arrotin
>> wrote: | > On
On 08/26/2015 02:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, August 26, 2015 2:29 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
On 08/26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote:
On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote:
<<>>
something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will..
On Wed, August 26, 2015 4:23 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
>
>
> On 08/26/2015 02:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>> On Wed, August 26, 2015 2:29 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote:
On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James
On 08/27/2015 07:29 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
> Maybe I'll start blocking any server with an SPF record that includes
> more than 5 IP addresses,
That's not a very good idea. major ESPs (eg: gmail.com) have way more
IPs listed than that.
> or servers where any host in the SPF record is in a DNS bl
On 08/26/2015 03:38 PM, Peter wrote:
On 08/27/2015 07:29 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
Maybe I'll start blocking any server with an SPF record that includes
more than 5 IP addresses,
That's not a very good idea. major ESPs (eg: gmail.com) have way more
IPs listed than that.
Yeah, I thought abou
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 09:53 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> Thanks a lot! The most difficult part of this I noticed is to make sure
> they responded with report of what discovered and which actions were
> taken, and if this didn't happen to have the whole block of IPs registered
> to them blocked
On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 00:44 +0100, Always Learning wrote:
This is a typical internal message:
REJECTED
Sender's IP: 14.215.136.13 => (no host name)
Sender's HELO : gmail.com => 173.194.116.118
Sender's port : 18168
Our server : abc.def.ghi
Date : Wednesday, 23:19:33, 26 Augu
On 8/26/2015 5:09 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Whoops. Lovehearts just arrived. They don't look like 'hearts' to me.
Have complained to lovehearts.com owner = Swizzels Matlow Ltd, an
English company.
its loverhearts.com, and they are also using heartslover.com for web
links. the first domain
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 17:22 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> its loverhearts.com, and they are also using heartslover.com for web
> links. the first domain is registered to someone claiming to be in
> Miami Florida, while the 2nd is registered to some organization in
> Bangladesh. yeah, right.
On 8/26/2015 5:30 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Easier just to block Digital Ocean for port 25 - as I have previously
done for all port 80 traffic.
you realize Digital Ocean is a rather large virtual private server
provider?wikipedia says they host over 190,000 sites, and last year
surpassed
On 08/26/2015 08:22 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 8/26/2015 5:09 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>> Whoops. Lovehearts just arrived. They don't look like 'hearts' to me.
>>
>> Have complained to lovehearts.com owner = Swizzels Matlow Ltd, an
>> English company.
>
> its loverhearts.com, and they are al
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 17:37 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> you realize Digital Ocean is a rather large virtual private server
> provider?wikipedia says they host over 190,000 sites, and last year
> surpassed Rackspace to become the 4th largest hosting provider.
>
> a blanket block of /16 su
On Wed, August 26, 2015 7:40 pm, zep wrote:
>
>
> On 08/26/2015 08:22 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 8/26/2015 5:09 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>>> Whoops. Lovehearts just arrived. They don't look like 'hearts' to me.
>>>
>>> Have complained to lovehearts.com owner = Swizzels Matlow Ltd, an
>>> Eng
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 19:54 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> Happily unblocked their blocks of IP addresses (as they do not need
> this sort of pressure to hear out about the trouble with their customer).
> This message will inadvertedly serve as a test if what is said is done ;-)
I've blocked the
We plan to use new digital voice recorders. Products are available
from Olympus, Sony, and others. All of these digital voice recorders
offer file-based audio storage. We would like to take advantage of
this feature and move the files to our computers.
It is not clear whether there is a differen
On 8/26/2015 7:18 PM, Chris Olson wrote:
We plan to use new digital voice recorders. Products are available
from Olympus, Sony, and others. All of these digital voice recorders
offer file-based audio storage. We would like to take advantage of
this feature and move the files to our computers.
On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 02:18 +, Chris Olson wrote:
> We plan to use new digital voice recorders.
> Is this difference in USB connectivity a concern for file transfer to
> CentOS computers?
I have a digital voice recorder. I use it just like a USB memory stick -
although I haven't re-formatte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/08/15 02:54, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> On Wed, August 26, 2015 7:40 pm, zep wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/26/2015 08:22 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2015 5:09 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Whoops. Lovehearts just arrived. They don't look lik
33 matches
Mail list logo
