On 04/30/2016 08:56 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Alice Wonder wrote:
For e-mail sent to people, yes.
But for what usernames are allowed when creating an account, I don't see why
blacklisting characters that are not allowed in a username is
On 04/30/2016 01:26 PM, wwp wrote:
I'm wondering if there's any interest in trying to bond em1 and eth0
(respectively wired and wireless interfaces here), and if any, how to
do it in CentOS6.
You might be able to round-robin your outgoing packets, but without
support on the upstream switch,
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Alice Wonder wrote:
>
> For e-mail sent to people, yes.
>
> But for what usernames are allowed when creating an account, I don't see why
> blacklisting characters that are not allowed in a username is a standards
> problem.
That's not how
Hello all,
I'm wondering if there's any interest in trying to bond em1 and eth0
(respectively wired and wireless interfaces here), and if any, how to
do it in CentOS6.
I've found this, which could possibly help (but I'm failing yet):
http://r.outlyer.net/linux:bonding
Original Message
> Date: Saturday, April 30, 2016 12:44:52 -0700
> From: Alice Wonder
>
> On 04/30/2016 12:22 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 04/30/2016 11:28 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
>>> Is there any advice on characters to allow in usernames?
>>
On 04/30/2016 12:22 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/30/2016 11:28 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
Is there any advice on characters to allow in usernames?
...
I don't think a whitelist alphabet is best approach because of people
with names that are not spelled with Latin characters.
Is there an
On 04/30/2016 12:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sat, April 30, 2016 1:28 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
I'm working on setting up an e-mail service.
I've got the e-mail servers working beautifully and am presently working
on re-writing the parts of Roundcube I don't like (e.g. it uses inline
On 04/30/2016 11:28 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
Is there any advice on characters to allow in usernames?
...
I don't think a whitelist alphabet is best approach because of people
with names that are not spelled with Latin characters.
Is there an existing blacklist of characters that technically
On Sat, April 30, 2016 1:28 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
> I'm working on setting up an e-mail service.
>
> I've got the e-mail servers working beautifully and am presently working
> on re-writing the parts of Roundcube I don't like (e.g. it uses inline
> JavaScript in a few places so CSP breaks it)
Original Message
> Date: Saturday, April 30, 2016 11:28:23 -0700
> From: Alice Wonder
>
> I'm working on setting up an e-mail service.
>
> I've got the e-mail servers working beautifully and am presently
> working on re-writing the parts of
On Sat, April 30, 2016 1:19 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On 04/30/2016 11:06 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, April 30, 2016 12:56 pm, William Warren wrote:
>>> ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on
>>> its
>>> face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux
I'm working on setting up an e-mail service.
I've got the e-mail servers working beautifully and am presently working
on re-writing the parts of Roundcube I don't like (e.g. it uses inline
JavaScript in a few places so CSP breaks it) but -
Is there any advice on characters to allow in
On 04/30/2016 11:06 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sat, April 30, 2016 12:56 pm, William Warren wrote:
ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
As I said, I feel I hear MS Widows admins on
On Sat, April 30, 2016 12:56 pm, William Warren wrote:
> ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
> face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
>
As I said, I feel I hear MS Widows admins on this list. There are only two
things that
Not all patches require rebooting the kernel. Most do not.
On 04/30/2016 10:56 AM, William Warren wrote:
ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
On 4/30/2016 11:33 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
On 4/30/2016 11:33 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote:
uptime=insecurity.
This sounds like MS Windows
On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote:
> uptime=insecurity.
This sounds like MS Windows admin's statement. Are there any Unix admins
still left around who remember systems with kernel that doesn't need
[security] patching for few years? And libc that does not need security
patches
uptime=insecurity. Patches must be kept up these days or your uptime
won't matter when your server gets compromised.
On 4/22/2016 4:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as
tune2fs against ext4.
Could this possibly be a machine where
Then you either made a mistake or ran into a bug. Both "normal" disk
partitions and logical volumes are regular block devices and tune2fs or
other tool operating on block devices will see no difference between
them and treat them identical.
On 30.04.2016 12:42, Rob Townley wrote:
> Not in my
Not in my testing especially about the time of 6.4.
On Apr 22, 2016 5:16 PM, "Gordon Messmer" wrote:
> On 04/22/2016 01:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
>
>> tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as
>> tune2fs against ext4.
>>
>
> tune2fs operates
20 matches
Mail list logo