Dariush Pietrzak said:
>> ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
> Could all those security experts recommending using sftp/scp for data
> transfers please explain how did they come to conclusion that creating
> shell accounts is the best way of giving access to few file
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:50:45PM +0200, Francois Sauterey wrote:
> Le 13:56 22/09/03 -0400, George Georgalis nous a ?crit :
> ** Message d'origine **
> >Most of my debian installs took the recent ssh updates without a hiccup,
> >but two of them deposited the file /etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 16:22 US/Pacific, Josh Carroll wrote:
One solution is to use spamassassin, and in your
~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, do the following:
Actually, I wish to stop the entire procedure at the SMTP level.
However, I have found my answer. I had to increase
message_body_v
Does anybody have a copy of the patch for delegation-only functionality
in woody's bind9? ISC seems to have taken it down from their site. It
used to be listed at
http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/delegation-only.html, but that page now
only contains links to the latest versions of bind (which app
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:50:45PM +0200, Francois Sauterey wrote:
> Le 13:56 22/09/03 -0400, George Georgalis nous a ?crit :
> ** Message d'origine **
> >Most of my debian installs took the recent ssh updates without a hiccup,
> >but two of them deposited the file /etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 16:22 US/Pacific, Josh Carroll wrote:
One solution is to use spamassassin, and in your
~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, do the following:
Actually, I wish to stop the entire procedure at the SMTP level.
However, I have found my answer. I had to increase
message_body_visible
Does anybody have a copy of the patch for delegation-only functionality
in woody's bind9? ISC seems to have taken it down from their site. It
used to be listed at
http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/delegation-only.html, but that page now
only contains links to the latest versions of bind (which app
One solution is to use spamassassin, and in your
~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, do the following:
score MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 6
Or whatever number you need to get over the default threshold.
Effectively any mail with an identified .exe attachment would gain a
bonus of +6 in spamassasin (in my case I
One solution is to use spamassassin, and in your
~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, do the following:
score MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 6
Or whatever number you need to get over the default threshold.
Effectively any mail with an identified .exe attachment would gain a
bonus of +6 in spamassasin (in my case I
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Ted Roby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [22 09 03 20:56]:
>My secalert account for these lists is being drenched with 40 to 70 of
>these fake Microsoft Update emails per day.
>My filters on my client dump them to a Junk folder, but I would prefer
>it if my Exim filter would do the job at the server level
Am Mon, 2003-09-22 um 20.56 schrieb Ted Roby:
Hi Ted,
> My secalert account for these lists is being drenched with 40 to 70 of
> these fake Microsoft Update emails per day.
> My filters on my client dump them to a Junk folder, but I would prefer
> it if my Exim filter would do the job at the ser
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:04AM -0700, Ted Roby wrote:
> The single part MIME filter doesn't seem to catch it though. What are
> others on this list using or doing to blatently block this stuff? There
> is no valid .exe I could receive, ever.
I use postfix and this in my body_checks map (rea
Ted Roby wrote:
My secalert account for these lists is being drenched with 40 to 70 of
these fake Microsoft Update emails per day.
My filters on my client dump them to a Junk folder, but I would prefer
it if my Exim filter would do the job at the server level instead. I am
running Nigel Meth
Le 13:56 22/09/03 -0400, George Georgalis nous a écrit :
** Message d'origine **
Most of my debian installs took the recent ssh updates without a hiccup,
but two of them deposited the file /etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_run before
restarting and left no daemon listening.
and what's about ssh/p
* Ted Roby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [22 09 03 20:56]:
>My secalert account for these lists is being drenched with 40 to 70 of
>these fake Microsoft Update emails per day.
>My filters on my client dump them to a Junk folder, but I would prefer
>it if my Exim filter would do the job at the server level
Am Mon, 2003-09-22 um 20.56 schrieb Ted Roby:
Hi Ted,
> My secalert account for these lists is being drenched with 40 to 70 of
> these fake Microsoft Update emails per day.
> My filters on my client dump them to a Junk folder, but I would prefer
> it if my Exim filter would do the job at the ser
My secalert account for these lists is being drenched with 40 to 70 of
these fake Microsoft Update emails per day.
My filters on my client dump them to a Junk folder, but I would prefer
it if my Exim filter would do the job at the server level instead. I am
running Nigel Metheringham's system_fi
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:04AM -0700, Ted Roby wrote:
> The single part MIME filter doesn't seem to catch it though. What are
> others on this list using or doing to blatently block this stuff? There
> is no valid .exe I could receive, ever.
I use postfix and this in my body_checks map (rea
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:32:10PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:56:14PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
>>How can I change this setting or control whether future updates create
>>the file?
>
>dpkg-reconfigure ssh
>
>Mike Stone
thanks -
--
GEORGE GEORGALIS, System Admin/
Ted Roby wrote:
My secalert account for these lists is being drenched with 40 to 70 of
these fake Microsoft Update emails per day.
My filters on my client dump them to a Junk folder, but I would prefer
it if my Exim filter would do the job at the server level instead. I am
running Nigel Methe
Le 13:56 22/09/03 -0400, George Georgalis nous a écrit :
** Message d'origine **
Most of my debian installs took the recent ssh updates without a hiccup,
but two of them deposited the file /etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_run before
restarting and left no daemon listening.
and what's about ssh/potat
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:56:14PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
How can I change this setting or control whether future updates create
the file?
dpkg-reconfigure ssh
Mike Stone
Most of my debian installs took the recent ssh updates without a hiccup,
but two of them deposited the file /etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_run before
restarting and left no daemon listening.
I found this bit of code in /var/lib/dpkg/info/ssh.postinst
setup_startup() {
start=yes
[ -e /usr/share/d
My secalert account for these lists is being drenched with 40 to 70 of
these fake Microsoft Update emails per day.
My filters on my client dump them to a Junk folder, but I would prefer
it if my Exim filter would do the job at the server level instead. I am
running Nigel Metheringham's system_fi
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:32:10PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:56:14PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
>>How can I change this setting or control whether future updates create
>>the file?
>
>dpkg-reconfigure ssh
>
>Mike Stone
thanks -
--
GEORGE GEORGALIS, System Admin/
Quoting Dariush Pietrzak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Why do you think there's anything wrong with ftp?
There's nothing wrong with offering data over ftp to the general public,
especially when you can guarantee the contents in some way. There is
something wrong when you need secure, private transfers.
Quoting Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Unfortunately some customers want to pay for a solution where they can just
> > use their silly M$ program like they're used to, and refuse 'complicated'
> > solutions.
>
> In that case, WebDAV is the way
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:56:14PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
How can I change this setting or control whether future updates create
the file?
dpkg-reconfigure ssh
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:17:14AM +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> Which is it we are missing? I can try and convert this mipsel to a
> mipseb (since it is theoretically switchable) and get it online,
> although it won't be on a fast 'net connection, nor will it have much
> hard drive space.
mip
Most of my debian installs took the recent ssh updates without a hiccup,
but two of them deposited the file /etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_run before
restarting and left no daemon listening.
I found this bit of code in /var/lib/dpkg/info/ssh.postinst
setup_startup() {
start=yes
[ -e /usr/share/d
Quoting Dariush Pietrzak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Why do you think there's anything wrong with ftp?
There's nothing wrong with offering data over ftp to the general public,
especially when you can guarantee the contents in some way. There is
something wrong when you need secure, private transfers.
Quoting Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Unfortunately some customers want to pay for a solution where they can just
> > use their silly M$ program like they're used to, and refuse 'complicated'
> > solutions.
>
> In that case, WebDAV is the way
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:17:14AM +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> Which is it we are missing? I can try and convert this mipsel to a
> mipseb (since it is theoretically switchable) and get it online,
> although it won't be on a fast 'net connection, nor will it have much
> hard drive space.
mip
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 at 08:53:19AM -0400, Dale Amon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:33:43PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > > ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
> > Could all those security experts recommending using sftp/scp for data
> > transfers please explai
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 at 08:53:19AM -0400, Dale Amon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:33:43PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > > ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
> > Could all those security experts recommending using sftp/scp for data
> > transfers please explai
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:33:43PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
> Could all those security experts recommending using sftp/scp for data
> transfers please explain how did they come to conclusion that creating
> shell accounts i
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 at 12:58:54PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 11:13:35 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > Will Bind9 in stable get the delegation-only patch?
>
> Probably not. Stable only gets updated for security issues.
>
> A Bind9 with the delegation-only patch is
> ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
Could all those security experts recommending using sftp/scp for data
transfers please explain how did they come to conclusion that creating
shell accounts is the best way of giving access to few files?
> use ftp when I really, re
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:33:43PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
> Could all those security experts recommending using sftp/scp for data
> transfers please explain how did they come to conclusion that creating
> shell accounts i
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 at 12:58:54PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 11:13:35 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > Will Bind9 in stable get the delegation-only patch?
>
> Probably not. Stable only gets updated for security issues.
>
> A Bind9 with the delegation-only patch is
> ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
Could all those security experts recommending using sftp/scp for data
transfers please explain how did they come to conclusion that creating
shell accounts is the best way of giving access to few files?
> use ftp when I really, re
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Actually one should think about using FTP at all :)
It sounds like he's stuck with it. These days I use rsync over
ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
use ftp when I really, really have to.
But then, I
Greetings!
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:47:21 +0200 Robert van der Meulen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was working on a newly-installed machine for a customer who requires
> an ftp server. After installing vsftpd (which i *had* good experience
> with), I noticed that the 'anonymous_enable' switch in
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Actually one should think about using FTP at all :)
It sounds like he's stuck with it. These days I use rsync over
ssh for pretty much everything I can, and otherwise wget. I only
use ftp when I really, really have to.
But then, I
Greetings!
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:47:21 +0200 Robert van der Meulen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was working on a newly-installed machine for a customer who requires
> an ftp server. After installing vsftpd (which i *had* good experience
> with), I noticed that the 'anonymous_enable' switch in
Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Regarding point #3 in the last message at that URL:
>
> > 3. Multiple recursive gets/puts using ftp is fast, easy, and reliable.
> > Closest http alternative is wget, which is nice but not quite as
> > nice.
>
> lftp http://http.us.debian.or
48 matches
Mail list logo
