If you are running either milter-spamd or -regex, you can try the latest
versions (from the source tarballs), which suppress noisy LOG_DEBUG
messages by default now. Previously, you'd get one syslog message per
mail body line, and I saw the "error 55" messages when large mails
arrived. After only t
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:51:00AM +0200, Tony Boston wrote:
> thanks for your response. Really appreciated. I'll check that with my boxes
To identify what process is flooding syslog messages you could do
something like this:
Temporarily add a debug log file which captures everything
# touch
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:18:22AM +0300, Valentine Astakhov wrote:
> login: vall
> password: [I press Enter there]
> Hallo!
> $
>
> Can I login without password prompt?
No. But if it's a pet peeve of yours, you could patch it like this.
Also, you can use specific login programs for specific tt
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:31:50PM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote:
> beta# cpio -o -F spwd.db
> /etc/spwd.db
> cpio: Unable to open /etc/spwd.db to read: Operation not permitted
>
> This is why I asked if the pledge is too tight on cpio.
Yes, I'd say you are right.
Theo, run
# find /etc | cpi
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 01:31:32PM +0200, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > This is why I asked if the pledge is too tight on cpio.
>
> I agree that it could be disappointing. but cpio is pledged, so it
> couldn't open /etc/spwd.db, because we considered this operation as
> a privilegied operation.
>
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:11:52AM +0200, Maximilian Pichler wrote:
> I'm just wondering what these other utilities might be.
hexdump -v -n 1234567 -e '"%c"'
If the input doesn't contain backslashes (or something else, tr(1))
vis -aoF6 | head -n 1234567 | unvis
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:57:40AM +0200, Maximilian Pichler wrote:
> > dd ibs=1 count=n
>
> Nice, this is about three time as fast as bs=1. Both are much slower
> than 'ghead -c'.
I think they meant dd and just didn't care about efficiency:
http://austingroupbugs.net/bug_view_page.ph
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 03:08:10PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> $ dd count=1 bs=1234567 < /dev/zero > /dev/null
> 1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
> 1234567 bytes transferred in 0.001 secs (653970943 bytes/sec)
That was my first hunch as well, but try
$ printf "foo\nbar\n" | dd count=1 bs=1234
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:07:19PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote:
> -r--r- 1 root auth 33 Oct 24 14:47 pieter.key
> -r--r- 1 root auth 10 Oct 24 14:47 pieter.uid
Your uid file looks too small, it's usually 13 bytes, with 12 hex digits
and a newline (optional).
> # /usr/libexec/auth/
When the process tries to write to the socket after the connection has
been closed, it gets a SIGPIPE signal. Without custom signal handling,
the default action is to terminate the process, see signal(3).
signal(3).
Basic socket programming issue, the author sucks. Try the patch below ;)
Daniel
* Damian Gerow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The man page dictates that priq doesn't do bandwidth shaping, yet to define
> a priq queue, you have to declare the bandwidth available. So which is it?
How does the man page dictate (or even imply) that priq doesn't use the
bandwidth parameter?
As I
Ah, you mean the following section in pf.conf(5)
bandwidth
Specifies the maximum bitrate to be processed by the queue. This
value must not exceed the value of the parent queue and can be
specified as an absolute value or a percentage of the parent
queue's b
We ordered this very box for undeadly. It also took a while to arrive,
but here's a preliminary dmesg (thanks to Kurt Seifried), further tests
to follow (on-board RAID probably not working except for JBOD, second
NIC not seen yet).
Daniel
OpenBSD 3.8-current (GENERIC) #319: Tue Nov 1 13:55:52 M
I'm pretty sure your theory is correct. You can query the list of
interfaces with pfctl -vsI, which prints '(skip)' on those that are
currently being skipped.
Reloading the ruleset does (and should) clear the 'set skip' set, as we
agreed that there should be no (or as little as possible) state in
> > cpu0: AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 148, 1005.28 MHz
>
> 1Ghz? So slow? :-)
It's cheaper and shows the superiority of low-tech cgi more clearly ;)
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20051112002121&pid=1&mode=flat
(yes, Will, 3.8-release and -stable work fine)
Daniel
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 07:59:20PM -0700, Justin wrote:
>Confirmed - synproxy works great if the synproxy machine is the
> default gateway for the end host. Sadly this means scalability (adding
> multiple synproxy boxes) is not possible, nor is it possible to filter a
> specific IP out of t
16 matches
Mail list logo
