Cyrus Could not shut down filedescriptor...
I am getting trios of messages from Cyrus at random intervals apparently not linked to any other even, a few dozen times a day : Aug 4 10:43:25 localhost cyrus/imapd[10867]: Could not shut down filedescriptor 0: Bad file descriptor Aug 4 10:43:25 localhost cyrus/imapd[10867]: Could not shut down filedescriptor 1: Bad file descriptor Aug 4 10:43:25 localhost cyrus/imapd[10867]: Could not shut down filedescriptor 2: Bad file descriptor I found nothing with Google. Does anyone know what this is about ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP upgrade 2.1.21 -- 2.1.22
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 17:23, Ted Knab wrote: [..] I posted about the same thing to the list at the exact same minute you did... Looks like we may not be alone with that problem although my Google searches did not yield anything valuable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP upgrade 2.1.21 -- 2.1.22
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 17:38, Jean-Marc V. Liotier wrote: On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 17:23, Ted Knab wrote: [..] I posted about the same thing to the list On [EMAIL PROTECTED] actually. I'm preparing a post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] also. I'll keep you posted if I find anything interesting. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP upgrade 2.1.21 -- 2.1.22
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 17:41, Jean-Marc V. Liotier wrote: I'm preparing a post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] also. I'll keep you posted if I find anything interesting. Here is what I got from Stephen Frost on debian-openldap. His answer is very interesting. --- Dumping directory to /var/backups/ldap/2.0.27-4/slapd-dc=ruwenzori,dc=net-slapcat.ldif with new slapcat... /etc/ldap/slapd.conf: line 53: unknown directive defaultaccess in ldbm database definition (ignored) done dn: ou=People,dc=ruwenzori,dc=net This is kind of odd.. It sounds like the slapd.preinst script was unable to slapcat the database with the 2.0.27-4 slapcat- not a good sign. Once you move back to 2.0.27-4 you might shut down your database and see what happens when you run slapcat on it, it *should* work but if it doesn't it could definitely cause problems during upgrade. [A bunch of additional assorted 'Missing RDN' and 'Mismatched RDN' errors] The fix_ldif script is having a great deal of trouble performing the migration from your old LDAP tree to a new compliant LDAP tree. The underlying problem is that the new version of slapd is much more picky about schema's and proper form than the old version so we're trying to fix old 2.0 LDIF's to be compliant. Obviously this doesn't work in all cases. slapd is started, but large chunks (I would say most) of my LDAP tree did not get through the conversion process that apparently happened Unfortunately you may have to perform the conversion process yourself. I'm willing to help and if we can fix things so that the conversion process works for you that's great but it might not be possible to do in a general way... Postfix keeps bitching about LDAP being broken, but I guess it is just the effect of the slapd setup being very broken, so I guess I should not pay attention to those messages and focus on getting my LDAP tree back online in proper shape. I expect the slapd database is, as you said, missing alot of things that postfix is looking for which is what postfix is complaining about. I guess the quick fix would be to downgrade to slapd 2.0.27-4 but I can't find the package with that version. Has anyone got an archive with old packages ? There's always http://snapshot.debian.net/ (http://snapshot.debian.net/archive/2003/07/10/debian/pool/main/o/openldap2/ appears to have 2.0.27-4 packages). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP upgrade 2.1.21 -- 2.1.22
The conversion process needed to make our tree acceptable to recent versions of slapd not being something I am going to embark upon on a Friday evening, downgrading to version 2.0.27-4 seems the most reasonable course of action. After having wiped the partly upgraded setup and installed the various 2.0.27-4 packets I loaded my backup LDIF, relaunched postfix and everything is now fine. On Monday, I will take a look at what the conversion process and try to understand why the fix_ldif script barfs on it. Well, that was the short story. Here is the real story for the benefit of other clueless users like me who want to know what actually happened. The truth is that I'm a telecommunications marketing consultant with a very superficial understanding of proper systems administration and a clueless LDAP newbie to boot, and I ended up taking care of the damage control today because all the really competent people are either staffed 200% or on vacation, so I had to learn LDAP administration basics in the process and get to know the tools along the way with a fair bit of trial and error. And I started with downgrading just slapd to 2.0.27-4 and found myself wondering why slapd kept on dying and the tools would not talk to it, only to finally understand after a bit of hair pulling that the system was not going to work unless everything was 2.0.27-4. But I succeeded, had fun along the way and now find myself with a nice varnish of LDAP skills. So let that be an encouragement to the other clueless newbies around : don't let that stuff intimidate you too much, you only need to know how to read, and some degree of patience... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_ssl versus apache-ssl
On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 18:40, Ghe Rivero wrote: What's the difference between them and which one is better to use? Thx! I don't have a clear answer, but here is some material that should help your research : http://www.apache-ssl.org/#mod_ssl Apache-SSL is not mod_ssl http://www.modssl.org/docs/2.6/ssl_faq.html#ToC3 What are the functional differences between mod_ssl and Apache-SSL, from where it is originally derived? http://www.mail-archive.com/modssl-users@modssl.org/msg15792.html mod_ssl is derived originally from Apache SSL mod_ssl is more widely used than Apache SSL Apache SSL supports Apache 1.x mod_ssl supports Apache 1.x and 2.x I would add that with mod_ssl you only need one Apache daemon. If your SSL server has low traffic, with apache-ssl you don't waste memory with idle threads that can't be used to serve HTTP requests. And that's one less daemon to maintain : one httpd.conf instead of two. I don't know about the finer points. All I can say is that there really seem to be an alternative. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Spam filtering on the lists (Re: *****SPAM***** (XXXX)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX...)
According to these headers contained in the message received from the list, SpamAssassin has correctly tagged it as Spam. So why was it forwarded anyway? X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=11.4 required=4.7 tests=SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,JAVASCRIPT,MAILTO_LINK, CTYPE_JUST_HTML,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD,SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS version=2.01 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.01 (devel $Id: SpamAssassin.pm,v1.61 2002/01/25 04:41:02 jmason Exp $) X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type: text/html; charset=ks_c_5601-1987 X-Spam-Report: 11.44 hits, 4.7 required; * 0.7 -- Subject is all capitals * 3.0 -- BODY: JavaScript code * 0.8 -- BODY: Includes a URL link to send an email * 3.3 -- HTML-only mail, with no text version * 0.8 -- Forged hotmail.com 'Received:' header found * 2.8 -- Subject is full of 8-bit characters Nice illustration of the scoring method. That convinces me to try SpamAssassin. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: two ethernet without routing
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 11:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There have to be some kind of routing now because I can connect to my apache typing the two IPs even I've just one cable connected to eth0. You have to explicitely block and log spoof attempts. For example, if you have eth0 on 192.168.0.0/24 and eth1 on 192.168.1.0/24 /sbin/iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j LOG /sbin/iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j DROP /sbin/iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -s 192.168.1.0/24 -j LOG /sbin/iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -s 192.168.1.0/24 -j DROP This way packets will only be accepted if they come in through the right interface, and you will be alerted if some don't. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: opinions on swap size and usage?
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 19:17, Richard Arends wrote: On 12 Feb 2002, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: But maybe swapd is something to look at: http://cvs.linux.hr/swapd/ There's a Debian package for it. I'm using it on my laptop. Works fine for me. A swap partition might be a tad faster than the swap files created on the fly by swapd, but for systems that infrequently swap, I have found that it is not a bad solution. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: opinions on swap size and usage?
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 19:17, Richard Arends wrote: On 12 Feb 2002, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: But maybe swapd is something to look at: http://cvs.linux.hr/swapd/ There's a Debian package for it. I'm using it on my laptop. Works fine for me. A swap partition might be a tad faster than the swap files created on the fly by swapd, but for systems that infrequently swap, I have found that it is not a bad solution. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: lynx, news.bbc.co.uk, DNS failures
On Thu, 2001-10-25 at 15:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re lynx failing to follow CNAME I've got users finding that lynx is failing to find news.bbc.co.uk. Same problem here with Galeon, and from two different ISP and two different computers both running Unstable. PGP signature
Re: lynx, news.bbc.co.uk, DNS failures
On Thu, 2001-10-25 at 15:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re lynx failing to follow CNAME I've got users finding that lynx is failing to find news.bbc.co.uk. Same problem here with Galeon, and from two different ISP and two different computers both running Unstable. pgpeeVBbBEiEu.pgp Description: PGP signature
