[support@backup.hmdc.harvard.edu: [hmdc.harvard.edu #4073] FYI: mon]

2003-09-10 Thread Theodore J. Knab
Some of you might find this one interesting. In a world where IT security sometimes means keeping services out of sight. Both Harvard and MIT advertise everything they have up and running. If I was a cracker running a DOS, I could use this information to monitor the machines I knocked of the ne

Re: [support@backup.hmdc.harvard.edu: [hmdc.harvard.edu #4073] FYI: mon]

2003-09-10 Thread Russell Coker
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 01:03, Theodore J. Knab wrote: > Some of you might find this one interesting. > > In a world where IT security sometimes means keeping services out of > sight. Both Harvard and MIT advertise everything they have up and > running. I don't think that letting people know which ser

Re: ..fixing ext3 fs going read-only, was : Sendmail or Qmail ? ..

2003-09-10 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:36:32AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > But for an unattended server, most of the time it's probably better to > > force the system to reboot so you can restore service ASAP. > > ..even for raid-1 disks??? _Is_ there a combination of raid-1 and > journalling fs'es for l

Re: Dovecot

2003-09-10 Thread Mark Devin
Guus Houtzager wrote: Hi, On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 01:31, Jernej Horvat wrote: Tuesday 09 of September 2003 08:55, Adrian von Bidder > (And - sorry, can't help you with an imap server with the mails in a relational db, I don't know of any solution that does this.) I know one. MS Exchange. :] An

Re: ..fixing ext3 fs going read-only, was : Sendmail or Qmail ? ..

2003-09-10 Thread Arnt Karlsen
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:39:44 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:36:32AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > But for an unattended server, most of the time it's probably > > > better to force the system to reboot so you can res

Re: ..fixing ext3 fs going read-only, was : Sendmail or Qmail ? ..

2003-09-10 Thread Russell Coker
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > ..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs??? > > ..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare? ReiserFS has many situations where file system corruption can make operations such as "find /" trigger a kernel Oops. Having a file system decide to panic th

Re: ..fixing ext3 fs going read-only, was : Sendmail or Qmail ? ..

2003-09-10 Thread Cameron Moore
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russell Coker) [2003.09.10 20:16]: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > ..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs??? > > ..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare? > > ReiserFS has many situations where file system corruption can make operations > such as "find

Re: ..fixing ext3 fs going read-only, was : Sendmail or Qmail ? ..

2003-09-10 Thread Russell Coker
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:22, Cameron Moore wrote: > > Having a file system decide to panic the kernel because your mount > > options instructed it to (ext3) is one thing.  Having the file system > > driver corrupt random kernel memory and cause an Oops (Reiser) is > > another.  The ReiserFS team's re