From: Scott Silva
> Just think how much money you could earn at Y3K!!! <> ;)
I wonder what are the plans for Y2038...
Most of us will have retired by then I guess.
JD
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/c
On 06/05/2012 16:20, aurfalien wrote:
Hi all,
I was at one time able to get x11vnc to start on 5900 but for some reason its
listening on port 5903.
Here is what the logs say;
-- snippet
X display :0.0
-- snippet
The VNC desktop is: hostname:3
Why is the VNC desktop going to 3?
I was w
On 03/05/2012 18:07, John Hinton wrote:
On 5/3/2012 12:40 PM, Prabhpal S. Mavi wrote:
A couple of notes.
1. SPF was not designed to be used this way. It is doubtful that anyone
has written anything that even remotely considered this option in use.
You will likely have to write it yourself.
Corr
Does anyone have an idea about if upstream will be moving to
Apache openoffice or libreoffice - or just stay at the current
openoffice and "patch" security items?
Jerry
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/
On 05/09/2012 06:31 AM, Jerry Geis wrote:
> Does anyone have an idea about if upstream will be moving to
> Apache openoffice or libreoffice - or just stay at the current
> openoffice and "patch" security items?
I don't have any idea what they will do in the Current releases ... but
they will do o
On 05/09/2012 04:31 AM, Jerry Geis wrote:
> Does anyone have an idea about if upstream will be moving to
> Apache openoffice or libreoffice - or just stay at the current
> openoffice and "patch" security items?
Red Hat Enterprise LInux 6.3 Beta appears to have LibreOffice 3.4.5.2 on it.
-Greg
_
While is a bad idea to reject mail without SPF records, its a good idea to
reject email if the SPF record is present and incorrectly set or not
authorized for the sender (hardfail).
SA works after the email gets in the queue, but the most efficient way,
whenever possible, is to reject it (not bou
On 09/05/2012 15:16, Asymmetrics Webmaster wrote:
While is a bad idea to reject mail without SPF records, its a good idea to
reject email if the SPF record is present and incorrectly set or not
authorized for the sender (hardfail).
SA works after the email gets in the queue, but the most efficie
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Tom Bishop wrote:
> Need an anti-spam proxy and looking at options, was wondering if anyone is
> using ASSP with Centos 6 and if so does anyone have any goo How-to links
> they have...I have managed to find this one -
>
> http://www.how2centos.com/fight-spam-with-as
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ..
Been working on my anti-spam centos mailserver for a while now and
thought I would share fail2ban's help.
I installed fail2ban a few weeks back. It was tough to get it working
properly but pretty much working now.
Although it works fine for brute force, I thought I would run it pretty
tough aga
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
> I am starting to see a real pattern to all this.
>
> I would love to see someone do a case study on spam attacks. Their
> system seems well honed to scale up with your defenses until they
> finally have to 'appear' on their real computers lik
How does one allow non-root users to use X11 console logins,
CentOS 5 with gnome? I've looked through the startup scripts,
but haven't been able to figure out where this goes.
Thanks.
Bill
--
INTERNET: b...@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ P
On 05/09/12 12:21 PM, Bill Campbell wrote:
> How does one allow non-root users to use X11 console logins,
> CentOS 5 with gnome? I've looked through the startup scripts,
> but haven't been able to figure out where this goes.
it should just work with the default configuration.
--
john r pierce
Hello listmates,
I have two seemingly identical (in this reglard, at least) machine - both
of them are running CentOS 6.2 with bind (bind-chroot) installed. I used
webmin to edit the DNS configuration. One one of them it seems to work
fine, on the other I get messages akin to the following:
Faile
On 5/9/2012 4:38 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> Hello listmates,
>
> I have two seemingly identical (in this reglard, at least) machine - both
> of them are running CentOS 6.2 with bind (bind-chroot) installed. I used
> webmin to edit the DNS configuration. One one of them it seems to work
> fine, on t
On May 9, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 4:38 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
>> Hello listmates,
>>
>> I have two seemingly identical (in this reglard, at least) machine - both
>> of them are running CentOS 6.2 with bind (bind-chroot) installed. I used
>> webmin to edit the DNS con
Hi.
At the moment it seems my machines just update to the latest current
release . I install a 6.0 machine and run yum update , and next thing
its 6.2 .
I have a requirement where I need machines to only upgrade to even
numbered sub releases eg: 6.0 , 6.2, 6.4 and only on my approval. But
will all
On Thursday 10 May 2012 17.36.07 Gregory Machin wrote:
> Hi.
> At the moment it seems my machines just update to the latest current
> release . I install a 6.0 machine and run yum update , and next thing
> its 6.2 .
>
> I have a requirement where I need machines to only upgrade to even
> numbered
On 05/09/12 10:36 PM, Gregory Machin wrote:
> I have a requirement where I need machines to only upgrade to even
> numbered sub releases eg: 6.0 , 6.2, 6.4 and only on my approval.
thats a rather strange requirement. 6.1 is 6.0 with updates rolled up.
a more sane requirement would be to only all
20 matches
Mail list logo
