Hi,
It's been a while since I dealt with IMAP, but the SSL errors
that you're listing here are from the client side.
On 23/12/24 07:02, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> Dec 22 15:44:10 ccs.covici.com imapd-ssl[1981705]:
ip=[:::65.49.1.74], couriertls: accept: error:0A000126:SSL
routines::une
Hi. Well, I use an emacs mua and I get my mail using
courier-imapd-ssl. Now, every so often, the system tells me
auto-plugged off and gives me this line:
GnuTLS error: #, -110
Now the real cause seems to be a problem with courier-imapd-ssl and
the status looks like this:
● courier-imapd-ssl.se
Hello, Wol.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 16:53:17 +, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 22/12/2024 15:29, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 December 2024 13:43:08 GMT Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> The trouble [is] that a kernel command line, or /etc/fstab, using lots
> >> of these is not human readable, and
Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday 20 December 2024 20:28:05 GMT Matt Jolly wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter what SDDM is using - it can launch either an X11 or
>> Wayland Plasma session for the DE in question.
>>
>> Use the dropdown in SDDM to select a Plasma (X11) session and you should be
>> fine.
>
On 22/12/2024 15:29, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Sunday 22 December 2024 13:43:08 GMT Alan Mackenzie wrote:
The trouble [is] that a kernel command line, or /etc/fstab, using lots
of these is not human readable, and hence is at the edge of
unmaintainability. This maintenance difficulty surely outw
On Friday 20 December 2024 20:28:05 GMT Matt Jolly wrote:
> It doesn't matter what SDDM is using - it can launch either an X11 or
> Wayland Plasma session for the DE in question.
>
> Use the dropdown in SDDM to select a Plasma (X11) session and you should be
> fine.
That took a bit of spotting -
On Sunday 22 December 2024 13:43:08 GMT Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> The trouble [is] that a kernel command line, or /etc/fstab, using lots
> of these is not human readable, and hence is at the edge of
> unmaintainability. This maintenance difficulty surely outweighs the
> rare situation where the phy
Hello, Wol.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 12:02:49 +, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 20/12/2024 17:44, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> >> If I understand things correctly, with this mechanism one can have the
> >> kernel assemble the RAID arrays at boot up time with a modern metadata,
> >> but still without needi
Hello again!
On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 16:58:59 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hello, Karl.
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 17:45:13 +0100, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> > Alan Mackenzie:
> > ...
> > > I've now got working code which assembles a metadata 1.2 RAID array at
> > > boot time. The syntax needed
On 21/12/2024 12:43, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
, where the extra bit is optional. This enhancement would not be
difficult. The trouble is more political. I think this code is
maintained by RedHat. RedHat's customers all use initramfs, so they
probably think everybody else should, too, hence would
On 20/12/2024 20:19, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I've just tried it, with metadata 1.2, and it doesn't work. I got error
messages at boot up to the effect that the component partitions were
lacking valid version 0.0 super blocks.
People without initramfs appear not to be in the sights of the
maintain
On 20/12/2024 17:44, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
If I understand things correctly, with this mechanism one can have the
kernel assemble the RAID arrays at boot up time with a modern metadata,
but still without needing the initramfs. My arrays are still at
metadata 0.90.
Please tell if you make bo
On 21/12/2024 22:53, Alan Grimes wrote:
Look at this!!! I cleared cache only 4 days ago and it's already sitting
on 224 GB of cache!!!
KiB Mem : 52765632+total, 26441356+free, 44915076 used, 22483510+buff/cache
Don't you mean 22GB cache :-) You can't have more cache than ram (I
guess you'
13 matches
Mail list logo
