On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:43:52 +0800, Jason Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We're running Debian with a custom 2.4.26 kernel on a couple of dual
> > Xeon's, with apache 1.3.x without any problem. I'll admit that these
> > are ligtly loaded servers for now, but we've done some stress testing
>
>
> We're running Debian with a custom 2.4.26 kernel on a couple of dual
> Xeon's, with apache 1.3.x without any problem. I'll admit that these
> are ligtly loaded servers for now, but we've done some stress testing
> before they went into production and never saw this problem.
>
> Maarten
Di
I used to have a problem on my server, i passed myself to sarge 1.3.29
with libapache-modssl and never saw the problem again.
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 20:18, Jason Lim wrote:
> Dear Gilles ,
>
> I'll try as well... hope we can find a solution.
>
> I have a few Redhat Linux 9 servers with Hyperthrea
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:43:52 +0800, Jason Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We're running Debian with a custom 2.4.26 kernel on a couple of dual
> > Xeon's, with apache 1.3.x without any problem. I'll admit that these
> > are ligtly loaded servers for now, but we've done some stress testing
>
>
> We're running Debian with a custom 2.4.26 kernel on a couple of dual
> Xeon's, with apache 1.3.x without any problem. I'll admit that these
> are ligtly loaded servers for now, but we've done some stress testing
> before they went into production and never saw this problem.
>
> Maarten
Di
I used to have a problem on my server, i passed myself to sarge 1.3.29
with libapache-modssl and never saw the problem again.
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 20:18, Jason Lim wrote:
> Dear Gilles ,
>
> I'll try as well... hope we can find a solution.
>
> I have a few Redhat Linux 9 servers with Hyperthrea
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Wagner) wrote:
> The only thing I will grant is that it should only respond once to each
> email address. Responding repeatedly to the same person is useless and
> potentially annoying. With all due respect Russell should've suggested
> that fro
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Wagner) wrote:
> The only thing I will grant is that it should only respond once to each
> email address. Responding repeatedly to the same person is useless and
> potentially annoying. With all due respect Russell should've suggested
> that fro
The only thing I will grant is that it should only respond once to each
email address. Responding repeatedly to the same person is useless and
potentially annoying. With all due respect Russell should've suggested that
from the get go instead of the bland "quit" message. ;)
At 11:58 PM 6/15/04
We are running Suse in a IBM Series 445 with 8 CPUs and Apache 1.3.27, the
hyperthreading is activated and we haven't any problem.
Saludos.
-Mensaje original-
De: Maarten Vink / Interstroom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de junio de 2004 8:22
Para: debian-isp@lists
How can u blame him for some spammer emailing it using ur address
as a source?
He is the responsible party for mail originated from the pduck.com domain.
The minute his auto-responder fired off incorrectly, he became a spammer.
When he ignored requests to stop, he became a _willful_ spammer.
This
Chris, here's a present for you --> yoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyo <--
Please use them in front of your 'u's, makes your messages so much
easier to read.
On Wednesday 16 June 2004 08.27, Chris Wagner wrote:
> An auto-responder has no way of knowing who or what emailed it.
You're saying...
Yes
You could always tell him that he's just handing his new email address
out to all the spambots testing his old one. That might scare him
enough to turn the damn thing off.
An auto-responder has no way of knowing who or what emailed it. How can u
blame him for some spammer emailing it using ur address as a source? It
seems like the only recourse is to try to find out who or what was using ur
address and blow that person off the net.
At 02:52 PM 6/16/04 +1000, [EMAI
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:18:07 +0800, Jason Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Gilles ,
>
> I'll try as well... hope we can find a solution.
>
> I have a few Redhat Linux 9 servers with Hyperthreading CPUs, and no
> problem whatsoever. I think they run Apache 2, so maybe that is the
> solutio
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:49, Ward Willats <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Could someone please help educate this person.
>
> You mean the "From:" header could be forged?! Dear Lord NO! Russell,
> say it ain't so!
Some people haven't realised this yet.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Sec
The only thing I will grant is that it should only respond once to each
email address. Responding repeatedly to the same person is useless and
potentially annoying. With all due respect Russell should've suggested that
from the get go instead of the bland "quit" message. ;)
At 11:58 PM 6/15/04
Could someone please help educate this person.
You mean the "From:" header could be forged?! Dear Lord NO! Russell,
say it ain't so!
I personally like giving forwarding pointers in the 550 text. People
can read it, but machines ignore it. (Though I hear Exchange
suppresses multi-line 550 text,
We are running Suse in a IBM Series 445 with 8 CPUs and Apache 1.3.27, the
hyperthreading is activated and we haven't any problem.
Saludos.
-Mensaje original-
De: Maarten Vink / Interstroom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de junio de 2004 8:22
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED
19 matches
Mail list logo
