Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 06:10:21PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Tue, 2007-Jan-23 14:22:54 -0500, Andresen, Jason R. wrote:
I have a project that requires me to simulate a link with varying but
well defined delay. The link is guarenteed to deliver packets in
order, s
Hello,
I think this is a relatively easy question to answer but couldn't find anything
after some searching.
I'm running:
FreeBSD engbox.tellurian.net 6.2-STABLE FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #0: Sat Jan 27
00:37:31 EST 2007
(yeah, pretty recent as of this email) :)
I have a daemon that apparently does
> Except that the original mail was talking about greylisting. This won't
> reject any mail sent from a MTA that correctly implements SMTP. According
> to the SMTP specs, I am perfectly at liberty to tell you that I can't
> accept your mail right now, please try again later. =20
But isn't the po
On Saturday 27 January 2007 02:16, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-Jan-26 09:24:58 -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> >like I said, for my understandings firewall implemention for spam fighting
> > is wrong
> >
> >because you reject the message
>
> Except that the original mail was talking about greylisting
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about bandwidth
> consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase bandwidth
> consumption and resources on both sides
Most spammers do not bother to return if the
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:10, you wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> > also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about
> > bandwidth consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase
> > bandwidth consumption and resources on both
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:32:54AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
> To defeat this, wouldn't a spammer just have to send out the same spam twice
> in a row from the same machines, spaced apart by a little time?
Yes. But in practice, most spammers don't bother. They don't use a real
SMTP server, but cust
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:32, Jim Pingle wrote:
> Roland Smith wrote:
> > Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request.
> > That's the whole point of doing this. So practically it doesn't increase
> > bandwidth consumption.
>
...
> Greylisting is a decent idea, but it see
Roland Smith wrote:
> Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request.
> That's the whole point of doing this. So practically it doesn't increase
> bandwidth consumption.
This conversation is getting rather OT for -stable, but I felt the need to
ask a question:
To defeat this,
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:57:08PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:10, you wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> > > also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about
> > > bandwidth consumption, by asking for resend later you cer
On 2007.01.27 13:04:28 -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:32, Jim Pingle wrote:
> > Roland Smith wrote:
> > > Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request.
> > > That's the whole point of doing this. So practically it doesn't increase
> > > bandwidth consump
On 1/27/07, Vinny Abello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I think this is a relatively easy question to answer but couldn't find anything
after some searching.
:
I have a daemon that apparently does a check using ssh-keyscan against the
loopback address when it starts up. The problem I have
On Saturday 27 January 2007 13:04, Roland Smith wrote:
>
> That's not a bonus. Think about it. Sending a message twice will cut the
> spammer's mail delivery rate at least in half.
>
nobody cares about this, what counts is the hit rate, more you get delivered
merrier the return, that means more y
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:23:13PM +0100, Simon L. Nielsen wrote..
> On 2007.01.27 13:04:28 -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:32, Jim Pingle wrote:
> > > Roland Smith wrote:
> > > > Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request.
> > > > That's the whole po
On Saturday 27 January 2007 13:23, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
>
> Could this discussion please be continued on the apropriate list which
> is designed for spam - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
lists.freebsd.org Mailing Lists
No such list devnull
could you please provide correct information in order to follow
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:04:28PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> > Greylisting is a decent idea, but it seems to me that it's just another
> > tool in the ongoing arms race against spammers. It may work for a while,
> > but eventually they'll catch on and it will only cause unnecessary delays
> > for legi
On Saturday 27 January 2007 13:39, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:04:28PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> > > Greylisting is a decent idea, but it seems to me that it's just another
> > > tool in the ongoing arms race against spammers. It may work for a
> > > while, but eventually they'll
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:34-0200, JoaoBR wrote:
> could you please provide correct information in order to follow your
> instructions?
plz
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:50:26 -0200
JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that is certainly a technical and political excuse which nobody want
> to hear for getting email late, because the common understanding is
> getting an email on earth within some minutes
everybody: ENOUGH ALREADY!
Take this d
Am trying to solve a little problem with 'pf'. I have a ruleset which
has some firewall rules for the IPv6 interface stf0. This works fine,
except when I rreboot the machine, as the pf script is run before the
network_ipv6 script - so stf0 does not exist. but I cannot work out
how to arrange for st
On Saturday 27 January 2007 14:19, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> everybody: ENOUGH ALREADY!
> Take this discussion off the -stable list!
are you my boss or something?
go swimming in your fjord, eat some lemmings and cool down man
--
João
A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e po
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 09:21:08AM -0600, Joe Koberg wrote:
>
> I just bought two Dell PE-1950's to use as routers. They have LSI Logic
> PERC/5i's attached to 80GB SATA drives. I am pretty sure this is the
> same card used for SAS.
>
> One thing is for sure, the mfi(4) card and driver aren't
On 1/27/07, Josef Karthauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem is that the synchronisation appears to progress ok, but
when I add some additional load, like cvsuping the ports collection
at the same time, after a short period I get loads of errors from
the mpt controller and then geom discon
On 2007-01-27, JoaoBR wrote:
> On Saturday 27 January 2007 14:19, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> > everybody: ENOUGH ALREADY!
> > Take this discussion off the -stable list!
>
> are you my boss or something?
> go swimming in your fjord, eat some lemmings and cool down man
No, he's not your boss. You
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 09:21:08AM -0600, Joe Koberg wrote:
I just bought two Dell PE-1950's to use as routers. They have LSI Logic
PERC/5i's attached to 80GB SATA drives. I am pretty sure this is the
same card used for SAS.
One thing is for sure, the mfi(4) card and driver aren't shy! See be
Even though on Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:15 Dan Nelson
realized that everything he says should be taken 'cum grano salis',
he unhesitatingly continued with this missive:
Took me awhile to get some time to try this again - wjv
> In the last episode (Jan 26), Bill Vermillion said:
> > I had wanted
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:22:43AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> malloc(c0d40100,c06eab00,2,c620dc00,c5ff6600,...) at malloc+0x81
This is a very big malloc (0xc0d40100 bytes) - it looks like a
pointer has been passed instead of a size.
> g_read_data(c60fb480,0,0,c0d40100,0,0) at g_read_data+0x3c
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 06:23:27PM +, Pete French wrote:
> Am trying to solve a little problem with 'pf'. I have a ruleset which
> has some firewall rules for the IPv6 interface stf0. This works fine,
> except when I rreboot the machine, as the pf script is run before the
> network_ipv6 script
On Saturday 27 January 2007 20:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, he's not your boss. You, on the other hand, are a moron and a
> complete menace to the usefulness of this mailing list. Take your
> whining about whatever it is to some place that wants to hear it and
> leave the FreeBSD-stable lis
On 1/27/07, Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No real problem there, but that brings up another question.
If - as documented in make.conf(5) - I put use the variable
NO_DYNAMIC_ROOT it says "set this is you do not want to link
/bin and /sbin dynamically".
Would that be the way to build
Deep in the forest in the dark of night on Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 19:23
with a cackle and an evil grin Scot Hetzel cast another eye of
newt into the brew and chanted:
> On 1/27/07, Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >No real problem there, but that brings up another question.
> >If - as d
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hans Petter Selasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Instead of having all these quirks, isn't it possible that the SCSI layer can
: auto-probe this?
The short answer is no. There's no reliable way to tell if a device
supports a given scsi command, and so
JoaoBR wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 20:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, he's not your boss. You, on the other hand, are a moron and a
complete menace to the usefulness of this mailing list. Take your
whining about whatever it is to some place that wants to hear it and
leave the FreeBSD-s
Hi,
After updating to 6.2-STABLE Sun Jan 28 02:57:55 CET 2007 (GENERIC), I
get an error on startup from sysctl, because dev.cpu.0.cx_supported
doesn't exist. I think I tracked it down to this update:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/rc.d/power_profile.diff?r1=1.9&r2=1.10&f=h
I g
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> I had wanted to build static binaries in /bin and /sbin - so
> I set NO_SHARED. The man pages says "... this can be bad. If set
> every utility that uses bsd.prog.mk will be linked statically."
Have you tried NO_DYNAMICROOT? It's
35 matches
Mail list logo
