Hi !
I have a question .
How to synchronize 2 folders. One folder1 is for webpage, and another
one2 is for data [blueprint-s] and its mapped.
I need to populate folder1 [website] with folder2 [blueprints], that
is for webpage.
Thank you,
Tibor Vovcak
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://l
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2628
Summary: hangs indefinitely (while listing files)
Product: rsync
Version: 2.6.4
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Compo
Hello,
I would like to use rsync client over ftp. I know how to use it with ssh but
it just can't work with ftp or ncftp. The purpose of usign it with ftp is
simple: most webhosting soft. like cpanel or plesk don't monitor ssh
bandwidth usage. You need to monitore it in order to suspend an over-
Hello,
I would like to use rsync client over ftp. I know how to use it with ssh but
it just can't work with ftp or ncftp. The purpose of usign it with ftp is
simple: most webhosting soft. like cpanel or plesk don't monitor ssh
bandwidth usage. You need to monitore it in order to suspend an over-
On Tue 19 Apr 2005, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Paul Slootman wrote:
>
> > There's a difference between giving a 5xx response during SMTP, and
> > first accepting a message and then later bouncing it to the (supposed)
> > envelope sender. I believe spamcop is protesting the latter, not the
> > first. I
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2328
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-19 10:28 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Have you had a chance to further test rsync with cygwin?
I just updated cygwin on a Windows XP Pro machine and tried several times to
initiate
Paul Slootman wrote:
> There's a difference between giving a 5xx response during SMTP, and
> first accepting a message and then later bouncing it to the (supposed)
> envelope sender. I believe spamcop is protesting the latter, not the
> first. I agree with them. 20% of the junk I get are bogus bou
Alun wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Reject codes were very common once. Then they were recommended
against. They were recommended against for a reason, that reason
being that they expose the user base to password and other guessing.
Who reco
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Reject codes were very common once. Then they were recommended
> against. They were recommended against for a reason, that reason
> being that they expose the user base to password and other guessing.
Who recommended this
