Re: xfree86_4.1.0-16woody4_alpha.changes REJECTED

2004-10-18 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:44:29AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Is there a FAQ somewhere that will tell me why I always get "REJECTED" > mails from katie after submitting security-fixed packages to the Debian > Security Team? > > I get one for each architecture. > > I seem to remember asking

Re: Slightly OT: Setting the primary NIC

2004-10-18 Thread clive
I had the same problem, with a different app, But needed to swop my primaty NIC with another one,  as my apps Bound to the wrong NIC     How to Set the Primary NIC on a Windows 2000 XP Use this procedure to determine and set the primary NIC on a Windows 2000 Server: 1.   Right-cli

Re: xfree86_4.1.0-16woody4_alpha.changes REJECTED

2004-10-18 Thread Branden Robinson
Is there a FAQ somewhere that will tell me why I always get "REJECTED" mails from katie after submitting security-fixed packages to the Debian Security Team? I get one for each architecture. I seem to remember asking Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> before, but never getting an answer. On Mo

Re: arp table overflow due to windows worm (resolved)

2004-10-18 Thread Ben Goedeke
Thank you guys so much. It's resolved. The problem was indeed that my default route was via the external IP of my firewall so that it tried to resolve all 134.102.0.0/16 IPs to mac addresses. Raising the arp cache to 2^16 worked as a hot fix. In my defense: When I started working here I did inq

Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 556-2] New netkit-telnet packages really fix denial of service

2004-10-18 Thread Mikael Löfstrand
Uppgraderat och tripwirat. /Micke -- () Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against HTML email and Microsoft-specific /\ attachments. If I wanted to read HTML, I would have visited your website! Support open standards. On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Martin Schulze wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >

Re: arp table overflow due to windows worm

2004-10-18 Thread Rick Moen
Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > How does that work? Connections to 127.0.0.0/8 go to device lo unless your > routing table is broken. Actually, I _meant_ to say that the effect occurs if /dev/lo hasn't been configured and activated -- not the hosts file entry per se. -- Cheers,