Re: Apologies from TrafficWoW
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:21, Russell Coker wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > > > What you are saying is a big lie about our company and if you continue we > > will take legal action against you. As a further update, after another 2.5 weeks no-one from trafficwow.net has identified themselves to me, or provided any evidence to support their claims. Because of this I have come to believe that my initial opinion of them is correct, they are spammers and should be treated as such. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Apologies from TrafficWoW
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:21, Russell Coker wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > > > What you are saying is a big lie about our company and if you continue we > > will take legal action against you. As a further update, after another 2.5 weeks no-one from trafficwow.net has identified themselves to me, or provided any evidence to support their claims. Because of this I have come to believe that my initial opinion of them is correct, they are spammers and should be treated as such. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth limiting
Thank you all, iproute was what I was looking for so long. just with this I reduce a little my outgoing bandwidth, but interactivity is greatly increased as well as my ping and DL bandwidth ! # tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root tbf rate 240kbit latency 30ms burst 1700 Raising the burst (=bucket) increases the outgoing bandwidth to the depends of interactivity. Also possible to do this by increasing the priority of the small packets. Guillaume
Re: concurrent POP3 and IMAP servers?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12 Feb 2002, chris qvigstad wrote: What do you mean with switch to maildir. Because I try to install sqwebmail and error like "Unable to open the maildir for this account -- the maildir doesn't exist or has incorrect ownership or permissions" . After succesfull login. Where is the configuration, can u guide me one by one please. Thx. aku You probably use the standard mailbox format which stores all mail in one big file per user in a spool directory. Maildir is a different way to store mail, where all users have a directory(usually located in their /home/username dir) and every mail is stored in its own file in this dir. Sqwebmail can't find this maildir since you're using the mailbox format. If you have installed courier imap + pop you have to run: maildirmake Maildir in every users home directory as that user(or chown it later). You also probably need to set up you smtp to deliver to maildirs. I am using postfix, how to setup the smtp to deliver to maildir ? Sory i am a beginner for this. aku If you don't want to mess with changing users mailboxes, better install uw-imap and cucipop, as these will play along with mailbox format, you could install IMP as a web front-end as well.
Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:53, Jason Lim wrote: > > It shouldn't be any worse write performance than RAID-5, and read > > performance > > > should be good! > > With RAID 5, isn't the data distributed (along with parity data) to the > various disks, while with RAID 1 the whole data is written to all disks? With RAID-5 the parity data needs to be updated for every write. So a small write will involve at least two reads and two writes - not much worse than 4 writes and less CPU time. > Read performance... if it is RAID 1 i suppose it would depend on how good > the read algorithm is? Worst case it would be the same as a single disk. If you have a single process doing non-linear reads then it'll be much the same as a single disk. If you have multiple processes then it should be better. > But if it is RAID 5, wouldn't it only need to read a bit of the data from > each disk (to build up the complete data)? Yes, but also each block can only be read from one particular disk. With RAID-1 any block can be read from any disk. > > Instead of having one server for 50 accounts which does everything, why > > not > > > have different servers for different services? Then you could have > > three web > > > servers for several thousand domains instead of getting a new server for > > every 50... > > I could see a lot of headache doing it that way, including user > authentication and how to tie all the services together in a nice neat > package that is easy to manage/maintain. Use LDAP for the back-end authentication data for everything. It's not that difficult to do (although there's quite some fiddly work). > Virtually all the publically > available solutions (Plesk, Hostplus, etc.) do it on a per-server basis, > and that would include Cobalt's Raqs. The problem with that is you accumulate numerous machines which all contain important data. This is OK if you're the hardware vendor (sell lots of machines with hardware RAID, support agreements, and other expensive stuff), but not so good if you're the ISP. > I suppose if we have many thousands of accounts it would be more > economical to do it your way (seperate mail server, ftp server, auth > server, www server, database server, etc. each specialized in both Yes. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Bandwidth limiting
Thank you all, iproute was what I was looking for so long. just with this I reduce a little my outgoing bandwidth, but interactivity is greatly increased as well as my ping and DL bandwidth ! # tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root tbf rate 240kbit latency 30ms burst 1700 Raising the burst (=bucket) increases the outgoing bandwidth to the depends of interactivity. Also possible to do this by increasing the priority of the small packets. Guillaume -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: concurrent POP3 and IMAP servers?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On 12 Feb 2002, chris qvigstad wrote: > >>>What do you mean with switch to maildir. Because >>>I try to install sqwebmail and error like "Unable to open the maildir >>>for this account -- the maildir doesn't exist or has incorrect >>>ownership or permissions" . After succesfull login. >>>Where is the configuration, can u guide me one by one please. >>> >>>Thx. >>> >>>aku >>> >>You probably use the standard mailbox format which stores all mail in >>one big file per user in a spool directory. >>Maildir is a different way to store mail, where all users have a >>directory(usually located in their /home/username dir) and every mail is >>stored in its own file in this dir. >>Sqwebmail can't find this maildir since you're using the mailbox format. >>If you have installed courier imap + pop you have to run: >>maildirmake Maildir >>in every users home directory as that user(or chown it later). >>You also probably need to set up you smtp to deliver to maildirs. >> > >I am using postfix, how to setup the smtp to deliver to maildir ? > >Sory i am a beginner for this. > >aku > > If you don't want to mess with changing users mailboxes, better install uw-imap and cucipop, as these will play along with mailbox format, you could install IMP as a web front-end as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:53, Jason Lim wrote: > > It shouldn't be any worse write performance than RAID-5, and read > > performance > > > should be good! > > With RAID 5, isn't the data distributed (along with parity data) to the > various disks, while with RAID 1 the whole data is written to all disks? With RAID-5 the parity data needs to be updated for every write. So a small write will involve at least two reads and two writes - not much worse than 4 writes and less CPU time. > Read performance... if it is RAID 1 i suppose it would depend on how good > the read algorithm is? Worst case it would be the same as a single disk. If you have a single process doing non-linear reads then it'll be much the same as a single disk. If you have multiple processes then it should be better. > But if it is RAID 5, wouldn't it only need to read a bit of the data from > each disk (to build up the complete data)? Yes, but also each block can only be read from one particular disk. With RAID-1 any block can be read from any disk. > > Instead of having one server for 50 accounts which does everything, why > > not > > > have different servers for different services? Then you could have > > three web > > > servers for several thousand domains instead of getting a new server for > > every 50... > > I could see a lot of headache doing it that way, including user > authentication and how to tie all the services together in a nice neat > package that is easy to manage/maintain. Use LDAP for the back-end authentication data for everything. It's not that difficult to do (although there's quite some fiddly work). > Virtually all the publically > available solutions (Plesk, Hostplus, etc.) do it on a per-server basis, > and that would include Cobalt's Raqs. The problem with that is you accumulate numerous machines which all contain important data. This is OK if you're the hardware vendor (sell lots of machines with hardware RAID, support agreements, and other expensive stuff), but not so good if you're the ISP. > I suppose if we have many thousands of accounts it would be more > economical to do it your way (seperate mail server, ftp server, auth > server, www server, database server, etc. each specialized in both Yes. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth control on FTP
On Wednesday 13 February 2002 13:25 pm, Greg Hunt wrote: > I'm not sure I completely understand your question, you want to let users > with faster connections have higher limits? How are you going to know their > connection speed? If what you are looking for is a ftp server that lets you > specify different rates for different users, then try NcFTPd > (www.ncftpd.com). It's commercial, but reasonably priced and you can try it > out before you buy it. No, not at all what I want to do. :-) Sorry I wasn't clear on that. I just want to rate-cap my FTP service at an arbitrary speed (say, 1.0Mbps) so it doesn't use all of my T1. If I understand the ProFTPd documentation, it says use RateReadBPS in conjunction with max users. So, to limit to 1.0Mbps use, I'd do something like: RateReadBPS10 MaxClients 10 But that will limit 10 users to 10bps each, total of 1.0Mbps. That is not what I want. If only one user is connected, I want that user to be able to DL at 1.0Mbps (obviously, if he is on a fast enough pipe). Am I completely misunderstanding RateReadBPS? -- Michael MerrittO2/CO2 Conversion Specialist [o] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.miklm.com | (931) 205-1392 | AIM/MSN miklm "Piracy is not a technological issue. It's a behavior issue." --Steve Jobs
Re: Bandwidth control on FTP
I'm not sure I completely understand your question, you want to let users with faster connections have higher limits? How are you going to know their connection speed? If what you are looking for is a ftp server that lets you specify different rates for different users, then try NcFTPd (www.ncftpd.com). It's commercial, but reasonably priced and you can try it out before you buy it. (I'm not affiliated with NcFTPd, but I use it on all the servers I admin and swear by it, it's written with ISPs in mind and has a better track record on security than the alternatives, such as WuFTP or proftpd). > I've got some files on an anonymous FTP server that I'd like to open up for > download to users of some online forums. But I don't want to let them > completely suck my bandwidth dry. I'm running proftpd 1.2.4. > > I see in the documentation there are bandwidth limits like this: > RateReadBPS 81920 > RateReadFreeBytes 5120 > RateReadHardBPS on > > But that will limit each client to n bps, regardless if they are on 56k or > T3. I don't want to do this; instead, I want to allow say 1Mbps of bandwidth > for upload and let whoever has the big pipes get the fast downloads. -- --SupplyEdge--- Greg Hunt 800-733-3380 x 107 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth control on FTP
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Michael Merritt wrote: > But that will limit each client to n bps, regardless if they are on 56k or > T3. I don't want to do this; instead, I want to allow say 1Mbps of bandwidth > for upload and let whoever has the big pipes get the fast downloads. > > Is there a way to do this? Switching ftp daemons is not out of the question, > as long as it is "free". Have a look at lukem-ftpd (as included from NetBSD); it includes a configure script and builds under Linux. It provides a "rateget" and "rateput" that can be set for different users (or ftp sites). But maybe I misunderstand your need: do you want some ftpd to check the transfer bandwidth/speed and then set as needed? Jeremy C. Reed echo 'G014AE824B0-07CC?/JJFFFI?D64CB>D=3C427=>;>6HI2>
Re: Bandwidth control on FTP
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 19:57, Michael Merritt wrote: > I've got some files on an anonymous FTP server that I'd like to open up for > download to users of some online forums. But I don't want to let them > completely suck my bandwidth dry. I'm running proftpd 1.2.4. > > I see in the documentation there are bandwidth limits like this: > RateReadBPS 81920 > RateReadFreeBytes 5120 > RateReadHardBPS on > > But that will limit each client to n bps, regardless if they are on 56k or > T3. I don't want to do this; instead, I want to allow say 1Mbps of bandwidth > for upload and let whoever has the big pipes get the fast downloads. Can't you use the kernel traffic shaper for this ?? -- Tot ziens, Bart-Jan
Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver
> It shouldn't be any worse write performance than RAID-5, and read performance > should be good! > With RAID 5, isn't the data distributed (along with parity data) to the various disks, while with RAID 1 the whole data is written to all disks? I'm guessing that each disk writing only part of the data to each disk would lead to faster performance (as long as the controller can handle sending the data to all the disks that fast). Read performance... if it is RAID 1 i suppose it would depend on how good the read algorithm is? Worst case it would be the same as a single disk. But if it is RAID 5, wouldn't it only need to read a bit of the data from each disk (to build up the complete data)? (I may be wrong with the above information, i'm no raid expert). > Instead of having one server for 50 accounts which does everything, why not > have different servers for different services? Then you could have three web > servers for several thousand domains instead of getting a new server for > every 50... > I could see a lot of headache doing it that way, including user authentication and how to tie all the services together in a nice neat package that is easy to manage/maintain. Virtually all the publically available solutions (Plesk, Hostplus, etc.) do it on a per-server basis, and that would include Cobalt's Raqs. I suppose if we have many thousands of accounts it would be more economical to do it your way (seperate mail server, ftp server, auth server, www server, database server, etc. each specialized in both software and hardware) but we don't have THAT many customers ;-) Mostly we put lower-end clients on servers with 100-200 or so clients, with higher end clients on servers with 50 or less. Works out pretty well that way, as you can then artificially "manage" the performance you give clients (of course, this is not direct control, but it achieves the same goal).
Bandwidth control on FTP
I've got some files on an anonymous FTP server that I'd like to open up for download to users of some online forums. But I don't want to let them completely suck my bandwidth dry. I'm running proftpd 1.2.4. I see in the documentation there are bandwidth limits like this: RateReadBPS 81920 RateReadFreeBytes 5120 RateReadHardBPS on But that will limit each client to n bps, regardless if they are on 56k or T3. I don't want to do this; instead, I want to allow say 1Mbps of bandwidth for upload and let whoever has the big pipes get the fast downloads. Is there a way to do this? Switching ftp daemons is not out of the question, as long as it is "free". -- Michael MerrittO2/CO2 Conversion Specialist [o] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.miklm.com | (931) 205-1392 | AIM/MSN miklm "Piracy is not a technological issue. It's a behavior issue." --Steve Jobs
Re: Bandwidth control on FTP
On Wednesday 13 February 2002 13:25 pm, Greg Hunt wrote: > I'm not sure I completely understand your question, you want to let users > with faster connections have higher limits? How are you going to know their > connection speed? If what you are looking for is a ftp server that lets you > specify different rates for different users, then try NcFTPd > (www.ncftpd.com). It's commercial, but reasonably priced and you can try it > out before you buy it. No, not at all what I want to do. :-) Sorry I wasn't clear on that. I just want to rate-cap my FTP service at an arbitrary speed (say, 1.0Mbps) so it doesn't use all of my T1. If I understand the ProFTPd documentation, it says use RateReadBPS in conjunction with max users. So, to limit to 1.0Mbps use, I'd do something like: RateReadBPS10 MaxClients 10 But that will limit 10 users to 10bps each, total of 1.0Mbps. That is not what I want. If only one user is connected, I want that user to be able to DL at 1.0Mbps (obviously, if he is on a fast enough pipe). Am I completely misunderstanding RateReadBPS? -- Michael MerrittO2/CO2 Conversion Specialist [o] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.miklm.com | (931) 205-1392 | AIM/MSN miklm "Piracy is not a technological issue. It's a behavior issue." --Steve Jobs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:40, Jason Lim wrote: > > Why not go the whole hog and put all the drives in a RAID-1 and have 4 > > copies > > > of all your data? > > Err.. that would reduce usable space all the way down to 40Gs, and provide > the worst write performance in history, wouldn't it? Okay I know It shouldn't be any worse write performance than RAID-5, and read performance should be good! > > For a mail server, database server, or other machine where you can only > > have > > > one copy of the data you want to be really paranoid about the drives. > > Like in most hosting environments, each server is "self contained". That > is, each account's services (www,ftp,mail,etc.) are on the same server as > the account. While it would be ideal to separate them all out onto > specialized servers, it isn't too practical (and we don't load the servers > that high... 50 small-mid sized accounts per server). Instead of having one server for 50 accounts which does everything, why not have different servers for different services? Then you could have three web servers for several thousand domains instead of getting a new server for every 50... -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Bandwidth control on FTP
I'm not sure I completely understand your question, you want to let users with faster connections have higher limits? How are you going to know their connection speed? If what you are looking for is a ftp server that lets you specify different rates for different users, then try NcFTPd (www.ncftpd.com). It's commercial, but reasonably priced and you can try it out before you buy it. (I'm not affiliated with NcFTPd, but I use it on all the servers I admin and swear by it, it's written with ISPs in mind and has a better track record on security than the alternatives, such as WuFTP or proftpd). > I've got some files on an anonymous FTP server that I'd like to open up for > download to users of some online forums. But I don't want to let them > completely suck my bandwidth dry. I'm running proftpd 1.2.4. > > I see in the documentation there are bandwidth limits like this: > RateReadBPS 81920 > RateReadFreeBytes 5120 > RateReadHardBPS on > > But that will limit each client to n bps, regardless if they are on 56k or > T3. I don't want to do this; instead, I want to allow say 1Mbps of bandwidth > for upload and let whoever has the big pipes get the fast downloads. -- --SupplyEdge--- Greg Hunt 800-733-3380 x 107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth control on FTP
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Michael Merritt wrote: > But that will limit each client to n bps, regardless if they are on 56k or > T3. I don't want to do this; instead, I want to allow say 1Mbps of bandwidth > for upload and let whoever has the big pipes get the fast downloads. > > Is there a way to do this? Switching ftp daemons is not out of the question, > as long as it is "free". Have a look at lukem-ftpd (as included from NetBSD); it includes a configure script and builds under Linux. It provides a "rateget" and "rateput" that can be set for different users (or ftp sites). But maybe I misunderstand your need: do you want some ftpd to check the transfer bandwidth/speed and then set as needed? Jeremy C. Reed echo 'G014AE824B0-07CC?/JJFFFI?D64CB>D=3C427=>;>6HI2>
Re: Bandwidth control on FTP
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 19:57, Michael Merritt wrote: > I've got some files on an anonymous FTP server that I'd like to open up for > download to users of some online forums. But I don't want to let them > completely suck my bandwidth dry. I'm running proftpd 1.2.4. > > I see in the documentation there are bandwidth limits like this: > RateReadBPS 81920 > RateReadFreeBytes 5120 > RateReadHardBPS on > > But that will limit each client to n bps, regardless if they are on 56k or > T3. I don't want to do this; instead, I want to allow say 1Mbps of bandwidth > for upload and let whoever has the big pipes get the fast downloads. Can't you use the kernel traffic shaper for this ?? -- Tot ziens, Bart-Jan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver
> It shouldn't be any worse write performance than RAID-5, and read performance > should be good! > With RAID 5, isn't the data distributed (along with parity data) to the various disks, while with RAID 1 the whole data is written to all disks? I'm guessing that each disk writing only part of the data to each disk would lead to faster performance (as long as the controller can handle sending the data to all the disks that fast). Read performance... if it is RAID 1 i suppose it would depend on how good the read algorithm is? Worst case it would be the same as a single disk. But if it is RAID 5, wouldn't it only need to read a bit of the data from each disk (to build up the complete data)? (I may be wrong with the above information, i'm no raid expert). > Instead of having one server for 50 accounts which does everything, why not > have different servers for different services? Then you could have three web > servers for several thousand domains instead of getting a new server for > every 50... > I could see a lot of headache doing it that way, including user authentication and how to tie all the services together in a nice neat package that is easy to manage/maintain. Virtually all the publically available solutions (Plesk, Hostplus, etc.) do it on a per-server basis, and that would include Cobalt's Raqs. I suppose if we have many thousands of accounts it would be more economical to do it your way (seperate mail server, ftp server, auth server, www server, database server, etc. each specialized in both software and hardware) but we don't have THAT many customers ;-) Mostly we put lower-end clients on servers with 100-200 or so clients, with higher end clients on servers with 50 or less. Works out pretty well that way, as you can then artificially "manage" the performance you give clients (of course, this is not direct control, but it achieves the same goal). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bandwidth control on FTP
I've got some files on an anonymous FTP server that I'd like to open up for download to users of some online forums. But I don't want to let them completely suck my bandwidth dry. I'm running proftpd 1.2.4. I see in the documentation there are bandwidth limits like this: RateReadBPS 81920 RateReadFreeBytes 5120 RateReadHardBPS on But that will limit each client to n bps, regardless if they are on 56k or T3. I don't want to do this; instead, I want to allow say 1Mbps of bandwidth for upload and let whoever has the big pipes get the fast downloads. Is there a way to do this? Switching ftp daemons is not out of the question, as long as it is "free". -- Michael MerrittO2/CO2 Conversion Specialist [o] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.miklm.com | (931) 205-1392 | AIM/MSN miklm "Piracy is not a technological issue. It's a behavior issue." --Steve Jobs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
problems with a ppp server
hi, (my english is not good , please be patient)I have a problem with mgetty and ppp . Sometimes when a peer disconect ppp does not exit, and if you do a who , appear as if the user is loggin in thanks in advance ! danilo
Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:40, Jason Lim wrote: > > Why not go the whole hog and put all the drives in a RAID-1 and have 4 > > copies > > > of all your data? > > Err.. that would reduce usable space all the way down to 40Gs, and provide > the worst write performance in history, wouldn't it? Okay I know It shouldn't be any worse write performance than RAID-5, and read performance should be good! > > For a mail server, database server, or other machine where you can only > > have > > > one copy of the data you want to be really paranoid about the drives. > > Like in most hosting environments, each server is "self contained". That > is, each account's services (www,ftp,mail,etc.) are on the same server as > the account. While it would be ideal to separate them all out onto > specialized servers, it isn't too practical (and we don't load the servers > that high... 50 small-mid sized accounts per server). Instead of having one server for 50 accounts which does everything, why not have different servers for different services? Then you could have three web servers for several thousand domains instead of getting a new server for every 50... -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
problems with a ppp server
hi, (my english is not good , please be patient)I have a problem with mgetty and ppp . Sometimes when a peer disconect ppp does not exit, and if you do a who , appear as if the user is loggin in thanks in advance ! danilo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: snmpd vulnerabilities
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 14:01, James wrote: > does anybody know if the package > snmpd 4.1.1-2 (stable) > is vulnerable as regards to the cert advisory ? Yes, it is. snmp 4.2.3 is not vulnerable ... bye, Roland -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mediaWays GmbH, 33311 Guetersloh Preliminary operational tests were inconclusive (the damn thing blew up)
snmpd vulnerabilities
hello, does anybody know if the package snmpd 4.1.1-2 (stable) is vulnerable as regards to the cert advisory ? http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-03.html Version wise it apparantly is anybody know if an upgrade is planned? Security in my source list didn't pick any thing up.. Thanks James
Re: Bandwidth limiting
You should have a look at http://my.netfilter.se/ > My users are using all the outgoing bandwidth by downloading files thru > FTP, port 20. This results in the eMail and Web being unusable, even if > they really don't need much by themselves. > > I head BSD has this kind of bandwidth limiting possibilities. > What about Deb ? > > I tried limiting the packet size, but it really doesn't do much. > Hope there is a solution somewhere, besides shutting down the FTP. -- Christofer,
Re: snmpd vulnerabilities
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 14:01, James wrote: > does anybody know if the package > snmpd 4.1.1-2 (stable) > is vulnerable as regards to the cert advisory ? Yes, it is. snmp 4.2.3 is not vulnerable ... bye, Roland -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mediaWays GmbH, 33311 Guetersloh Preliminary operational tests were inconclusive (the damn thing blew up) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snmpd vulnerabilities
hello, does anybody know if the package snmpd 4.1.1-2 (stable) is vulnerable as regards to the cert advisory ? http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-03.html Version wise it apparantly is anybody know if an upgrade is planned? Security in my source list didn't pick any thing up.. Thanks James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth limiting
You should have a look at http://my.netfilter.se/ > My users are using all the outgoing bandwidth by downloading files thru > FTP, port 20. This results in the eMail and Web being unusable, even if > they really don't need much by themselves. > > I head BSD has this kind of bandwidth limiting possibilities. > What about Deb ? > > I tried limiting the packet size, but it really doesn't do much. > Hope there is a solution somewhere, besides shutting down the FTP. -- Christofer, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth limiting
> My users are using all the outgoing bandwidth by downloading files thru > FTP, port 20. This results in the eMail and Web being unusable, even if > they really don't need much by themselves. > > I head BSD has this kind of bandwidth limiting possibilities. > What about Deb ? > > I tried limiting the packet size, but it really doesn't do much. > Hope there is a solution somewhere, besides shutting down the FTP. I'm redirecting some outgoing traffic (with dest. ports 80:81 and so on to squid and with dest. ports 20:21 to frox) via firewall and using squid with delay_pools + frox with redirecting traffic to squid (where it goes through delay_pools). One moment - frox seems to be unstable. -- With Best Regards, Denis A. Kulgeyko DK666-UANIC e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 81607525 SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- UNIXes ... they are VERY friendly. But .. they chooses their friends VERY carefully ... :) ^]:wq!
Re: concurrent POP3 and IMAP servers?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:56:49PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 34 lines which said: > I am using postfix, how to setup the smtp to deliver to maildir ? (Not the SMTP, the MDA, message delivery agent.) Postfix comes with heavily commented configuration files. It is hard to miss: aragon:/usr/doc/postfix/examples % zgrep -i maildir * sample-local.cf.gz:# "Maildir/" for qmail-style delivery (the / is required). sample-local.cf.gz:#home_mailbox = Maildir/ sample-local.cf.gz:# mailbox or maildir file (in fact, it limits the size of any file
Re: Bandwidth limiting
> My users are using all the outgoing bandwidth by downloading files thru > FTP, port 20. This results in the eMail and Web being unusable, even if > they really don't need much by themselves. > > I head BSD has this kind of bandwidth limiting possibilities. > What about Deb ? > > I tried limiting the packet size, but it really doesn't do much. > Hope there is a solution somewhere, besides shutting down the FTP. I'm redirecting some outgoing traffic (with dest. ports 80:81 and so on to squid and with dest. ports 20:21 to frox) via firewall and using squid with delay_pools + frox with redirecting traffic to squid (where it goes through delay_pools). One moment - frox seems to be unstable. -- With Best Regards, Denis A. Kulgeyko DK666-UANIC e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 81607525 SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- UNIXes ... they are VERY friendly. But .. they chooses their friends VERY carefully ... :) ^]:wq! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bandwidth limiting
Hello, My users are using all the outgoing bandwidth by downloading files thru FTP, port 20. This results in the eMail and Web being unusable, even if they really don't need much by themselves. I head BSD has this kind of bandwidth limiting possibilities. What about Deb ? I tried limiting the packet size, but it really doesn't do much. Hope there is a solution somewhere, besides shutting down the FTP. Guillaume
