Hi all,
I am trying to install C8 from a DVD I made onto a 1Tb disc partitioned into 2
ext4 partitions.
The first partition contains C7 which I installed via a DVD.
Trying to install C8 yields an error indicating the file /dev/root is missing.
I've checked the SHA256 sum for the ISO for CentO
On 6/5/20 4:31 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Friday, June 05, 2020 1:39 PM -0700 John Pierce
> wrote:
>
>> don't most packages create a .rpmnew file if you've modified the previous
>> package file ?
>
> That file is created AFTER you've made edits, and reflects only the
> state of the file in
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:34:07PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out
> what edits I made to my config files.
>
> My most recent case was trying to figure out what I'd done to my BIND files
> (/etc/named.*, /etc/logrotate.d/named, /var/named/*). I ended up just
> tarring them
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 04:00:31PM +0100, Paddy Doyle wrote:
> Just to mention that 'etckeeper' from EPEL is a great way of tracking
Ah, I see you mentioned you were using that already in the original post.
Sorry for the noise.
Paddy
___
CentOS mailin
I have these interfaces listed.
eth0: flags=4163 mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.8 netmask 255.255.252.0 broadcast 192.168.3.255
inet6 fe80::e2d5:5eff:fe63:abe5 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20
ether e0:d5:5e:63:ab:e5 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 42411243 bytes 47
On 6/8/20 3:46 PM, Jerry Geis wrote:
I have these interfaces listed.
virbr0: flags=4099 mtu 1500
inet 192.168.122.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.122.255
virbr1: flags=4099 mtu 1500
inet 192.168.100.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.100.255
Those int
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 05:53:28AM -0700, John Pierce wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, 2:47 AM Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
>
> >
> > My aim is simply to eliminate as much spam as possible (that is, before
> > adding
> > SpamAssassin) while keeping false positives to a minimum.
> >
>
> The one thing
yeah, then don't use a backup MX server at all. I dropped using one when I
realized most spam prevention would just end up at the backup which didn't
have the same rules
as long as your server has a decent uptime and is never down more than a
few hours and that very rarely, then you really don't
On 9/06/20 2:56 pm, Jon LaBadie wrote:
I hit another limitation. My backup MX handler is a 3rd party who
will not use greylisting. Thus all the 1st timers I rejected just
delivered to my alternate MX address and were not blocked at all.
Don't use a backup MX, they are a relic of the 90s when
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:10 AM Peter wrote:
> On 9/06/20 2:56 pm, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>
> Don't use a backup MX, they are a relic of the 90s when mail servers
> were often times not always online. a sending mail server will
> generally retry the message for up to five days if your MTA is down
10 matches
Mail list logo
