At 12:24 AM 6/17/00 -0500, Kain wrote:
>What I think you're thinking of is just IP. You probably haven't been seeing
Definately not IP, IP just gets your packets there and back.
>Now, if you actually mean "what octets mean and do", those are actually
defined higher than TCP, and are laid out i
At 12:24 AM 6/17/00 -0500, Kain wrote:
>What I think you're thinking of is just IP. You probably haven't been seeing
Definately not IP, IP just gets your packets there and back.
>Now, if you actually mean "what octets mean and do", those are actually
defined higher than TCP, and are laid out
Is there anyone expert in sendmail who can help me sort
something out?
sendmail -bv
/map access [EMAIL PROTECTED]
shows me that he's marked REJECT
but sendmail accepts mail from him.
I can run sendmail -bt and show people all or parts of sendmail.cf
sendmail.mc and access if someone would help
Is there anyone expert in sendmail who can help me sort
something out?
sendmail -bv
/map access [EMAIL PROTECTED]
shows me that he's marked REJECT
but sendmail accepts mail from him.
I can run sendmail -bt and show people all or parts of sendmail.cf
sendmail.mc and access if someone would hel
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:23:22PM -0200, Kasparavicius Andrius wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> well, I hope this will solve my problem..by the way..maybe is way to
> control users ability to open a port?
Do you mean binding to a local TCP/IP port? As long as the stock
ke
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Right now there is a thread going on on linux-kernel about a project
> by SGI which adds "job management" (which is not the same as job
> control, mind you) to the linux kernel. Right now, the first goal is
> the ability to account for group of "unrel
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:18:09PM +0100, Chris Evans wrote:
> I posted a request for help with bouncing or blackholing an idiot's
> Email at SMTP or TCP/IP level on a Hamm/Sendmail 8.9 box.
> (Idiot has set up a dire holiday autoresponder.) No response from
> you wonderful people.
You can
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 10:44:02AM -0200, Kasparavicius Andrius wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Could you please elaborate on that? What exactly do you mean by
> > "global"? I guess that putting ulimit in the global startup script
> > would do the job, but I'm not sure
> I'm not a computer professional but I run some Email lists using
> Listar on a debian hamm machine (I've never had time or felt the
> need to upgrade) and things have run fine for some years but now
> I've got a bouncer. I've blocked him with listar but I'm still getting a
> bounce to me as
I posted a request for help with bouncing or blackholing an idiot's
Email at SMTP or TCP/IP level on a Hamm/Sendmail 8.9 box.
(Idiot has set up a dire holiday autoresponder.) No response from
you wonderful people.
I'm off to a conference for a week from Tuesday a.m. and would
dearly like t
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:23:22PM -0200, Kasparavicius Andrius wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> well, I hope this will solve my problem..by the way..maybe is way to
> control users ability to open a port?
Do you mean binding to a local TCP/IP port? As long as the stock
k
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Right now there is a thread going on on linux-kernel about a project
> by SGI which adds "job management" (which is not the same as job
> control, mind you) to the linux kernel. Right now, the first goal is
> the ability to account for group of "unre
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:18:09PM +0100, Chris Evans wrote:
> I posted a request for help with bouncing or blackholing an idiot's
> Email at SMTP or TCP/IP level on a Hamm/Sendmail 8.9 box.
> (Idiot has set up a dire holiday autoresponder.) No response from
> you wonderful people.
You can
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 10:44:02AM -0200, Kasparavicius Andrius wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Could you please elaborate on that? What exactly do you mean by
> > "global"? I guess that putting ulimit in the global startup script
> > would do the job, but I'm not sure
> I'm not a computer professional but I run some Email lists using
> Listar on a debian hamm machine (I've never had time or felt the
> need to upgrade) and things have run fine for some years but now
> I've got a bouncer. I've blocked him with listar but I'm still getting a
> bounce to me as
I posted a request for help with bouncing or blackholing an idiot's
Email at SMTP or TCP/IP level on a Hamm/Sendmail 8.9 box.
(Idiot has set up a dire holiday autoresponder.) No response from
you wonderful people.
I'm off to a conference for a week from Tuesday a.m. and would
dearly like
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could you please elaborate on that? What exactly do you mean by
> "global"? I guess that putting ulimit in the global startup script
> would do the job, but I'm not sure I understood what you mean here.
I mean, than user can be opened more shells th
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:16:26PM -0200, Kasparavicius Andrius wrote:
>
>
> hello, maybe someone knows a good solutions for global(not for one
> sesion) controling users resources..limiting cpu, ram, proc and/or smth...
>
>
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could you please elaborate on that? What exactly do you mean by
> "global"? I guess that putting ulimit in the global startup script
> would do the job, but I'm not sure I understood what you mean here.
I mean, than user can be opened more shells t
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:16:26PM -0200, Kasparavicius Andrius wrote:
>
>
> hello, maybe someone knows a good solutions for global(not for one
> sesion) controling users resources..limiting cpu, ram, proc and/or smth...
>
> ---
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Chris Wagner wrote:
> At 10:48 PM 6/16/00 -0500, Sanjeev Gupta wrote:
> >Sockets? Butyou would definitely have seen this more than a couple of
> >times.
>
> No, not sockets, sockets are way down on the stack. This is the protocol
> that says what the octets mean and do.
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:43:45AM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
> At 10:48 PM 6/16/00 -0500, Sanjeev Gupta wrote:
> >Sockets? Butyou would definitely have seen this more than a couple of
> >times.
>
> No, not sockets, sockets are way down on the stack. This is the protocol
> that says what the oct
22 matches
Mail list logo
