On Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:01:32AM -0800, David Walser wrote:
> > Not to sound silly or anything, but apache is a web
> > server... we build
> > and configure it as web server. Our aim, with
> > apache, is for it to be
> > a web server. Now, I agree that there are probably
> > a million and one
On Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:38:16AM +, richard bown wrote:
> > I also only make reference to the newbies here because everyone else
> > seems to want to continually point out that Mandrake is for newbies,
> > so those who want to use Mandrake as an "expert" (I guess) are stuck
> > with some new
--- Vincent Danen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to sound silly or anything, but apache is a web
> server... we build
> and configure it as web server. Our aim, with
> apache, is for it to be
> a web server. Now, I agree that there are probably
> a million and one
> uses for apache, but reall
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 05:50, Vincent Danen wrote:
>
> I also only make reference to the newbies here because everyone else
> seems to want to continually point out that Mandrake is for newbies,
> so those who want to use Mandrake as an "expert" (I guess) are stuck
> with some newbiezed software
> on the 'net. Everybody Apache user I know (that use
> it on workstations) do the same things.
I agree that this will cause annoy more people than it will help .. imho
Steven
On Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 06:44:06PM -0800, David Walser wrote:
> > What are you talking about? Enabling Indexes by
> > default somehow makes
> > Apache work whereas having it off by default
> > doesn't?
>
> Did it ever occur to you that people use Apache for
> more than serving websites? Especia
On Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 10:08:08PM -0500, Levi Ramsey wrote:
> > Apache works just *fine* without Indexes. And because it is,
> > potentially, a security hole (through inappropriate disclosure), the
> > end user should be forced to enable it where appropriate... which is
> > exactly the case.
>
On Mon Mar 04 15:50 -0700, Vincent Danen wrote:
> Apache works just *fine* without Indexes. And because it is,
> potentially, a security hole (through inappropriate disclosure), the
> end user should be forced to enable it where appropriate... which is
> exactly the case.
Yes, but every case tha
--- Vincent Danen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are you talking about? Enabling Indexes by
> default somehow makes
> Apache work whereas having it off by default
> doesn't?
Did it ever occur to you that people use Apache for
more than serving websites? Especially desktop users
on networks,
On Sat Mar 02, 2002 at 10:55:55PM -0800, David Walser wrote:
> No, not for me it's not that hard to turn on, but I
> remember the first time I used Apache, RH 5.2 days.
> All I had to do was install it, and it was fully
> functional, it was great! I didn't know anything
> about web servers at t
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 10:55:55PM -0800, David Walser wrote:
> No, not for me it's not that hard to turn on, but I
> remember the first time I used Apache, RH 5.2 days.
> All I had to do was install it, and it was fully
> functional, it was great! I didn't know anything
> about web servers at t
No, not for me it's not that hard to turn on, but I
remember the first time I used Apache, RH 5.2 days.
All I had to do was install it, and it was fully
functional, it was great! I didn't know anything
about web servers at the time, I didn't know it would
be that easy (thought I would have to co
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 10:42:40PM -0800, David Walser wrote:
> I agree. Having Indexes turned off by default in
> Apache is a PAIN and is useful to almost nobody.
I don't think so. It's not that hard to turn on anyway.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
What difference do
I agree. Having Indexes turned off by default in
Apache is a PAIN and is useful to almost nobody.
--- richard bown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> you guys are so paranoid over security, this time
> you've gone far too
> far MSEC level 99 is not required.
__
ooker
Subject: Re: [Cooker] install report 8.2b3 , the martian invasion
On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 23:04, Garrick Staples wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 10:51:30PM +, richard bown alleged:
> > On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 22:23, Garrick Staples wrote:
> > > Um, 'chkconfig
On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 23:04, Garrick Staples wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 10:51:30PM +, richard bown alleged:
> > On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 22:23, Garrick Staples wrote:
> > > Um, 'chkconfig iptables off'? rpm -e msec?
> > >
> > > Or, disable firewalling in the control center (it's under sec
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 10:51:30PM +, richard bown alleged:
> On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 22:23, Garrick Staples wrote:
> > Um, 'chkconfig iptables off'? rpm -e msec?
> >
> > Or, disable firewalling in the control center (it's under security)?
> >
> >
> No Garrick , I prefer to manually flush ip
On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 22:23, Garrick Staples wrote:
> Um, 'chkconfig iptables off'? rpm -e msec?
>
> Or, disable firewalling in the control center (it's under security)?
>
>
No Garrick , I prefer to manually flush iptables, then just to make sure
bastill-netfilter stop
that opens it up like a
Um, 'chkconfig iptables off'? rpm -e msec?
Or, disable firewalling in the control center (it's under security)?
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 10:15:29PM +, richard bown alleged:
> Hi all
> I 've had to go back to 8.1.
> Whatever you have done with security is a disaster.
>
> Telneting in to th
19 matches
Mail list logo
