Meant to send this to the list : Be interesting to see what forwarding does to the threading.
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 18:09, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > On 05 Sep 2003 17:58:37 -0500 > Bret Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't know what the recourse would be if I were to really raise hell. > > It appears that the maintainer of RH packages has the power to declare > > issues NOTABUG and I do not know the procedure to go over them. > > > > I pleaded on one of the bug threads not to NOTABUG this issue since it > > damn well is a big and rendered the package unusable for me. I pay > > attnetion to who is trying to get to the six boxes I maintain that are > > directly connected to the internet and filling the logs with crap is > > unacceptable. > > > > Pretty clear that it's a bug. > > > Shit I done got all pissed off again. > > lol, it's friday... let it go ;o) > > > > If you'd like an updated RPM let me know. > > > > > > > Does either of these also fix the bogus auth failure messages? > > > > That is the thing that really irks me, and Ben too I guess :) > > > > Yes, no error messages. The only price you "pay" is that no user > can login _without_ a password. This is because my patch requires > you set PermitEmptyPasswords to "no". The reason your logs are > filling up with these messages is sshd "asking" pam if the user is > allowed to log in without a password. Pam, seeing this as a login > attempt, logs the error and > That's ok I think since I require keys anyway I did not realize that this was a pam password thing. Maybe if I spent less time ranting and more time reading I would have found that. Yes I would like to have your src.rpm will it build on 7x as well as 8 and 9? Bret -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
