system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
520668: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=520668
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: procps
Version: 1:3.2.7-11
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Cou
> Anything new here?
I think upstream changed the default, but I'm not sure in what version.
Olaf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikxg67y=bt
Anything new here?
I think the article you've linked to in sysctl.conf
(http://lwn.net/Articles/277146/) can be seen as encouragement to enable
syncookies, or not?
It already says that they're only activated if the system runs into
trouble, and then it's still better to have "limited connections" (
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:16 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
[...]
> I happen to agree and in future I'll treat further sysctl key options
> like this:
> * Generally a bad idea or only for very specific circumstances - close
> * Something useful for some subset of Debian machines - commented out
>
Hello,
Regarding the procps bug 520668 which was asking for the TCP SYN
cookies to be enabled by default, I've looked at the various emails
to and for.
While it does seem like it would be a good idea at times, there is not
a consensus that it is a good *default* Nothing about this bug
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 04:08:48PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:42:09AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> You forgot to mail the maintainer of the package you change the
> configuration for. There are several packages now who applies various
> changes and this are all global p
On Feb 14, Paul Wise wrote:
> Kinda a dissapointing thread, but it reveals a few points:
I see more handwaving than points.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 13, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> The upstream default is that they are disabled. The onus is on
>> proponents to argue why this should be changed.
>
> The proposed rationale for the change is that SYN cookies are not used
> until the SYN
On Feb 13, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The upstream default is that they are disabled. The onus is on
> proponents to argue why this should be changed.
The proposed rationale for the change is that SYN cookies are not used
until the SYN queue is full and at that point it is more useful to have
new TC
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 18:24 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 13, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > I'm going to agree with Bastian here. Single-user systems won't need
> > this and system administrators can make their own choice.
> I do not really disagree with your argument, but can you or the othe
On Feb 13, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I'm going to agree with Bastian here. Single-user systems won't need
> this and system administrators can make their own choice.
I do not really disagree with your argument, but can you or the other
people who oppose this explain more clearly why you consider en
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 16:08 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:42:09AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> > Before I make this change, I am emailling debian-devel for comments. I
> > am looking in particular for information about why it could be harmful
> > (if it is).
>
> You forgo
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:42:09AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Before I make this change, I am emailling debian-devel for comments. I
> am looking in particular for information about why it could be harmful
> (if it is).
You forgot to mail the maintainer of the package you change the
configuration
13 matches
Mail list logo
