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 tra
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 tr
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) incre
[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.
Wh
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 dis
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) incr
[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 suc
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 di
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
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.ncft
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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.ncft
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
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
> 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 th
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
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
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 kno
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 "u
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 o
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
Jam
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
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
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
Ja
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
> 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
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
> 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 limitin
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 p
34 matches
Mail list logo
