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
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 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 th
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
> 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
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
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, 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 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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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, 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 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
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
