On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:31:43 +0200
LeVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a process running, and I can not kill it. Really weird.
> See:
>
> # ps ax
> 2965 ?RW 3:21 [nopromo]
> # kill -9 2965
> # ps ax
> 2965 ?RW 3:21 [nopromo]
> #
>
> You see, I've killed it
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:31:43 +0200
LeVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a process running, and I can not kill it. Really weird.
> See:
>
> # ps ax
> 2965 ?RW 3:21 [nopromo]
> # kill -9 2965
> # ps ax
> 2965 ?RW 3:21 [nopromo]
> #
>
> You see, I've killed it
Costas Magkos wrote:
Hi debian people,
Is there a way to downgrade to stable, after having apt-get
dist-upgrade to testing?
http://lamorak.hetisw.nl/~dudes/downgrade-sid-to-woody.txt
This is a very pre-beta version, didn't find the time yet to complete it.
Gr,
Ivo
Costas Magkos wrote:
Hi debian people,
Is there a way to downgrade to stable, after having apt-get
dist-upgrade to testing?
http://lamorak.hetisw.nl/~dudes/downgrade-sid-to-woody.txt
This is a very pre-beta version, didn't find the time yet to complete it.
Gr,
Ivo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:07:23 +0100
Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, CCing the list again because other people might have cleverer
> ideas. I hope you don't mind, Jaroslaw.
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:36:27AM +0100, Jaros?aw Tabor wrote:
> > That's OK. But what about routing ? Ho
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:07:23 +0100
Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, CCing the list again because other people might have cleverer
> ideas. I hope you don't mind, Jaroslaw.
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:36:27AM +0100, Jaros?aw Tabor wrote:
> > That's OK. But what about routing ? Ho
Jan Minar wrote:
IMHO, the key words in Richard's posting are ``[not] enough expertise'',
and ``a track record''. The idea that the [conceptual] flaws will be
fixed in The Next Release [TM], although quite common amongst the
people, is a mere instance of a proof by wishful thinking. Clueless
a
Richard Atterer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:00:58PM +0100, I.R. van Dongen wrote:
You might want to check tinc (http://tinc.nl.linux.org)
I strongly recommend *not* to use tinc.
<http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/249142> illustrates that the
authors didn't
Jan Minar wrote:
IMHO, the key words in Richard's posting are ``[not] enough expertise'',
and ``a track record''. The idea that the [conceptual] flaws will be
fixed in The Next Release [TM], although quite common amongst the
people, is a mere instance of a proof by wishful thinking. Clueless
aut
Richard Atterer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:00:58PM +0100, I.R. van Dongen wrote:
You might want to check tinc (http://tinc.nl.linux.org)
I strongly recommend *not* to use tinc.
<http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/249142> illustrates that the
authors didn't
Jaroslaw Tabor wrote:
Hi all!
I know that this list isn't the best place to ask, but I'm reding this
list for years. I hope You will forgive me :)
I'm looking for good linux (debian of course) based solution for VPN
connecting about 100 LANs. The solution should be stable, easy for
implementat
Jaroslaw Tabor wrote:
Hi all!
I know that this list isn't the best place to ask, but I'm reding this
list for years. I hope You will forgive me :)
I'm looking for good linux (debian of course) based solution for VPN
connecting about 100 LANs. The solution should be stable, easy for
implementation
Lupe Christoph wrote:
On Monday, 2004-02-09 at 20:38:37 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:17:01PM +0100, Konstantin Filtschew wrote:
security.debian.org seems to be down
traceroute to security.debian.org (194.109.137.218), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
1 f
Lupe Christoph wrote:
On Monday, 2004-02-09 at 20:38:37 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:17:01PM +0100, Konstantin Filtschew wrote:
security.debian.org seems to be down
traceroute to security.debian.org (194.109.137.218), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 firewal
could send it to me
personallyI would really apriciate it.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:17:48 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 11:43:06AM +0200, I.R. van Dongen wrote:
> >
> > lamorak:~# crontab -l
> > @daily apt-get -q -q -q -q update &
lamorak:~# crontab -l
@daily apt-get -q -q -q -q update && apt-get -s -q -q -q -q
dist-upgrade
make sure the output is mailed to an address you use daily.
When an update is available you will be mailed, otherwise you get no mail.
Gr,
Ivo van Dongen
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:19:34 +0200
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:21:42 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:45:48PM +0100, Janus N. T?ndering wrote:
> > This should be more than enough. I have been running a mailserver on a
> > Pentium 133MHz 96 RAM + SCSI for a few years. It can handle quite a lot
> > mail --- ne
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:21:42 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:45:48PM +0100, Janus N. T?ndering wrote:
> > This should be more than enough. I have been running a mailserver on a
> > Pentium 133MHz 96 RAM + SCSI for a few years. It can handle quite a lot
> > mail --- ne
Personally, I don't beleave /root should be used for any information that is
'dangerous' I personally use it sometimes for temp storage for .debs and such,
before I move them to /usr/src.
Therefor I don't really care what the default permissions are for /root.
the files that need to be there (
Personally, I don't beleave /root should be used for any information that is
'dangerous' I personally use it sometimes for temp storage for .debs and such, before
I move them to /usr/src.
Therefor I don't really care what the default permissions are for /root.
the files that need to be there (
according to the postfix manual, you need to set Errors-To: as a header.
I am aware that this is contra-rfc, but it works in most situations.
Greetings,
Ivo van Dongen
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:40:36 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thx for the pointers on finding the insecure pormmail.pl
>
>
according to the postfix manual, you need to set Errors-To: as a header.
I am aware that this is contra-rfc, but it works in most situations.
Greetings,
Ivo van Dongen
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:40:36 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thx for the pointers on finding the insecure pormmail.pl
>
>
Is this machine doing webmail by any chance?
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:14:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am using Apache-ssl 1.3.26.1+1.48-0woody3 and openssl 0.9.6c-2.woody.1.
>
> On a daily basis I am seeing the following errors.
>
> [Wed Feb 5 10:00:03 2003] [notice] child
Is this machine doing webmail by any chance?
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:14:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am using Apache-ssl 1.3.26.1+1.48-0woody3 and openssl 0.9.6c-2.woody.1.
>
> On a daily basis I am seeing the following errors.
>
> [Wed Feb 5 10:00:03 2003] [notice] child
24 matches
Mail list logo
