Greetings!
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:24:12 +0200 Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 19 July 2004 19.22, Shannon R. wrote:
> > I've been googling around for recorded info on how many static files
> > per second a [...] Apache web server can serve before it sta
Hi Craig,
> > 1) Are you using unofficial repositories on production servers ?
>
> no, i run unstable on several dozen production servers without a problem.
i
> find that doing that is an excellent way of both keeping software
up-to-date
> and also keeping several months ahead of the script-kiddie
hello,
Volker Tanger wrote:
If you're looking for a high-performance webserver mainly for static
files, others than apache could be quite interesting for you,
especially thttpd, mathopd and Zeus - see
http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/benchmarks.html
also note that apache 2.0 is much bett
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:49:26PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Michelle Konzack said:
> > Am 2004-07-19 10:01:06, schrieb Russell Coker:
> > >On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:59, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:39, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Other people get >10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s.
>
> I do not belive it !
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9704.1/0257.html
See the above message from David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:25, Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shared storage would be neat as we could do real load balancing on
> POP3/IMAP servers as well but has anybody a recommendation for a
In my experience neither POP3 nor IMAP uses any significant amount of CPU
time. Therefor
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:15, "Shannon R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the machine will be hosting 1 website only. with about 3,000 static html
> files and about 5,000 image files (from 3kb to 100kb. and no, it's not a
> pornsite, but a bike enthusiast site)
>
> so what do you guys think? any ballpar
(host mail3av.westend.com[212.117.79.67] said: 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 seconds... (in reply to RCPT
TO command)) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christian's mail server is broken.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
h
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:06:01 +1000, Russell Coker writes:
>(host mail3av.westend.com[212.117.79.67] said: 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 seconds... (in reply to RCPT
>TO command)) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Christian's mail server is broken.
Why would you co
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05, Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (create large file)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=public_html/large_file bs=1024
> > count=5 5+0 records in
> > 5+0 records out
> >
> > (get large file)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ wget www.lobefin.net/
Hello
On 2004-07-20 Russell Coker wrote:
> (host mail3av.westend.com[212.117.79.67] said: 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 seconds... (in reply to > RCPT TO
> command)) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Christian's mail server is broken.
Err, no. It's not a bug it
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:48, Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-07-20 Russell Coker wrote:
> > (host mail3av.westend.com[212.117.79.67] said: 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 seconds... (in reply to >
> > RCPT TO command)) [EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:48:36 +0200, Christian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> not a trojan-winXP-desktop
..how does these act, one shot, or all the time?
..how are such Wintendos best shot down?
(Where it's legal to shoot them down. Some jurisdictions
allow forcibly preventing crime
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 14.06, Russell Coker wrote:
> [...] Greylisted for 300 seconds... [...]
> [..] mail server is broken.
Russel, if there are arguments against greylisting, I'd like to hear
about them - so far, I've mostly seen success reports. (I like
greylisting because while the idea is
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:28, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 July 2004 14.06, Russell Coker wrote:
> > [...] Greylisted for 300 seconds... [...]
> > [..] mail server is broken.
>
> Russel, if there are arguments against greylisting, I'd like to hear
A
begin quotation of Arnt Karlsen:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:48:36 +0200, Christian wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > not a trojan-winXP-desktop
>
> ..how does these act, one shot, or all the time?
Those act as a continuous one-shot deal; to put it another way, they
aren't listeni
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 15.23, Russell Coker wrote:
> Hmm, the postgrey package is not available for woody (no great
> surprise I guess), I'll have to back-port it.
I guess you saw my other message by now - written in the apparently
mistaken assumption that you probably knew what greylisting is.
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 15.46, Russell Coker wrote:
> It's not similar to TMDA in that it normally should not bother users,
> as opposed to TMDA which is specifically designed to annoy people.
The similarity is that it requires an extra step by the sender, which is
why most spammers/viruses fail
Hi
On 2004-07-20 Russell Coker wrote:
> > Russel, if there are arguments against greylisting, I'd like to hear
>
> After the previous message explaining it I am all for greylisting!
*grin*
>> - server pools which don't send out the second try from the same IP.
> This will still work eventually
Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello
>
> On 2004-07-20 Russell Coker wrote:
>> (host mail3av.westend.com[212.117.79.67] said: 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 seconds... (in reply to
>> > RCPT TO command)) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Christia
It's not at ll like challenge response. Challenge response sends email tot
he senders/humans asking them to confirm. We're just asking systems to act
like a noirmal mailserver during greylisting, which is 4xx, retry later.
It won't work forever eventually spambots and virusbots will catch
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:38:24AM +0200, emilio brambilla wrote:
>hello,
>
>Volker Tanger wrote:
>>If you're looking for a high-performance webserver mainly for static
>>files, others than apache could be quite interesting for you,
>>especially thttpd, mathopd and Zeus - see
>> http://www.acm
Hello Shannon,
Monday, July 19, 2004, 11:22:23 AM, you wrote:
> Hello List!
>
>
> I've been googling around for recorded info on how many static
> files per second a 1.3GHz Pentium Celeron (1Gb RAM, 7200 RPM IDE
> hardisk), Apache web server can serve before it starts getting slow.
> The stat
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:41:54AM +0200, Philipp wrote:
> first, thank you for you long and comprehensive answer, but we wont use
> unstable.
they're your servers, so your choice. i wasn't telling you what you should do,
i was informing you that there was another very viable alternative and that
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, it requires postfix' policy server which is only available in
> postfix 2.1.
I think I'll give up on back-porting it. Back-porting Postfix 2.0.16 was
enough pain. I guess I'll just have to move u
I use the backport from backports.org for the policy server on a couple of
machines, not for the greylisting, but to check the status of domain controllers
that provide username services via winbind (samba 3 version, also from
backports)... (winbind returns user not found when the domain is down, b
backports.org has a 2.1.4 backport currently.
--On Wednesday, July 21, 2004 00:07 +1000 Russell Coker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, it requires postfix' policy server which is only available in
postf
27 matches
Mail list logo
