On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 06:14:15PM -0400, Brian Furry wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> I am in the process of getting a debian server in the high school that I
> teach in. The network admin is concerned about the security of the
> exsisting Novell Server, border manager, etc. Our ISP is very picky
> about
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 06:14:15PM -0400, Brian Furry wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> I am in the process of getting a debian server in the high school that I
> teach in. The network admin is concerned about the security of the
> exsisting Novell Server, border manager, etc. Our ISP is very picky
> abou
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:51:50AM +0800, Marcel Welschbillig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just wanted to make it clear the the email i sent about Neomail was
> purely to let other people know about a program that i thought was worth
> mentioning, it had nothing to do with Ernie Miller and was not intended
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:51:50AM +0800, Marcel Welschbillig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just wanted to make it clear the the email i sent about Neomail was
> purely to let other people know about a program that i thought was worth
> mentioning, it had nothing to do with Ernie Miller and was not intended
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:46:11PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
...
> Thanks to everyone who responded. I should have been a little clearer
> on the system setup. The machine in question consists of a main unit
> and a bunch of externally attached hard disks connected to a network.
> It has no m
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:46:11PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
...
> Thanks to everyone who responded. I should have been a little clearer
> on the system setup. The machine in question consists of a main unit
> and a bunch of externally attached hard disks connected to a network.
> It has no
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 10:37:24AM +, Niall Walsh wrote:
> I can't resist it!
me too:)
> Add a usb digital camera to the box and only allow people who are not
I've thought of this too, but rejected it because it's s easy to
circumvent, just place your hand in front of the camera.
--
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 10:37:24AM +, Niall Walsh wrote:
> I can't resist it!
me too:)
> Add a usb digital camera to the box and only allow people who are not
I've thought of this too, but rejected it because it's s easy to
circumvent, just place your hand in front of the camera.
--
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:40:54PM -0700, Eric N. Valor wrote:
>
> I work from a default-deny stance. Usual things to then allow in would be
> 25 (smtp), 80 (http), 22 (ssh, although be careful here), 53-UDP (DNS, if
This strickes me as odd, warning to be careful with ssd in the same
sentence
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:40:54PM -0700, Eric N. Valor wrote:
>
> I work from a default-deny stance. Usual things to then allow in would be
> 25 (smtp), 80 (http), 22 (ssh, although be careful here), 53-UDP (DNS, if
This strickes me as odd, warning to be careful with ssd in the same
sentence
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:42:19PM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
...
> The result is that, as expected, llama doesn't route or accept the packet.
thanks for the crisp and clear explanation; now I get it:)
--
groetjes, carel
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:42:19PM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
...
> The result is that, as expected, llama doesn't route or accept the packet.
thanks for the crisp and clear explanation; now I get it:)
--
groetjes, carel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsu
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:14:17PM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
...
> Arggghh! Sorry, you're right. I was pretty sure that linux checked the
> dest of packets before accepting them, so I guess my brain decided to read
> it wrong and think you were talking about what I expected you to be a
> talki
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:14:17PM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
...
> Arggghh! Sorry, you're right. I was pretty sure that linux checked the
> dest of packets before accepting them, so I guess my brain decided to read
> it wrong and think you were talking about what I expected you to be a
> talk
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:14:44PM -0500, Steve Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 06:21:04PM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
...
> > The disadvantage of this command is that it doesn't preserve hardlinks.
>
> Really? Mine preserves hard (and soft) links.
strange...rea
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:14:44PM -0500, Steve Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 06:21:04PM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
...
> > The disadvantage of this command is that it doesn't preserve hardlinks.
>
> Really? Mine preserves hard (and soft) links.
strange...rea
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:30:26AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 06:21:04PM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:49:03PM +0100, Thor wrote:
> > ...
> > > Speak for cloning a single partition then i sugges
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:49:03PM +0100, Thor wrote:
...
> Speak for cloning a single partition then i suggest a simple
> 'cp -ax /mount_point_of_original_parition /mount_point_of_target_partiton'
> the 'a' stand for archive (recursive and same permission)
> and with the 'x' the copy don't go out
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:30:26AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 06:21:04PM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:49:03PM +0100, Thor wrote:
> > ...
> > > Speak for cloning a single partition then i sugges
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:49:03PM +0100, Thor wrote:
...
> Speak for cloning a single partition then i suggest a simple
> 'cp -ax /mount_point_of_original_parition /mount_point_of_target_partiton'
> the 'a' stand for archive (recursive and same permission)
> and with the 'x' the copy don't go out
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 09:28:49PM +, Jim Breton wrote:
> You don't need to assign any trust to these keys; it's enough to get the
> "Good signature..." output. As long as the signature verifies
> successfully (as it does in your example above), you know that the
> person who created the key
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 09:28:49PM +, Jim Breton wrote:
> You don't need to assign any trust to these keys; it's enough to get the
> "Good signature..." output. As long as the signature verifies
> successfully (as it does in your example above), you know that the
> person who created the key
On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:11:01PM +0100, marcoghidinelli wrote:
...
> for the debian-developer keys:
> apt-get install debian-keyring
>
I've done this some time ago, but now I get:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Sat Feb 10 19:40:06 2001) --]
gpg: Signature made Sat 10 Feb 2001 06:11:01
On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:11:01PM +0100, marcoghidinelli wrote:
...
> for the debian-developer keys:
> apt-get install debian-keyring
>
I've done this some time ago, but now I get:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Sat Feb 10 19:40:06 2001) --]
gpg: Signature made Sat 10 Feb 2001 06:11:01
Hai and a jolly new year,
I'm in the process of switching from pmfirewall to ipmasq. I've read
a lot, and now I'm confused:)
I thought rp_filter was supposed to prevent ip spoofing, but ipmasq
still adds rules like:
ipchains -A input -j DENY -i ! lo -s 127.0.0.1/255.0.0.0 -l
ipchains -A in
Hai and a jolly new year,
I'm in the process of switching from pmfirewall to ipmasq. I've read
a lot, and now I'm confused:)
I thought rp_filter was supposed to prevent ip spoofing, but ipmasq
still adds rules like:
ipchains -A input -j DENY -i ! lo -s 127.0.0.1/255.0.0.0 -l
ipchains -A i
26 matches
Mail list logo
