On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:38, Jason Lim wrote:
Usually if we get such a report, we'll inform the client of their actions.
Most times that discourages them from doing it.
In any case it's a service to your client - who is the one paying you. It
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:59, Tim Spriggs wrote:
That's the only thing to do, if someone is excessively scanning you then
you block their IP addresses for a while. Of course you can't be too
trigger happy with this or you'll end up with half the Internet in your
firewall rule set...
In the
It's a grey area ihmo.
A portscan is just a nock on a appartment door, and just waiting whom is
going to openup. Besides that, it's nothing more. And you can see this as
annoying, nocking on someones door and then running like hell, but.. then
again, no harm is done.
In comparisin with a mail
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:08:43AM -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Russell Coker wrote:
BTW As a rule of thumb, if you can crash it then you can probably
exploit it, I hope that server isn't running as root.
I realize that too. Unfortunately, Universities (at least
Russell Coker schrieb:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:20, echelon wrote:
Im trying to get some new servers, but Im not quiet sure that Im
buying the right hardware.
It appears from the web page that you are buying for price, this is
risky as
there are many features of designed server machines that
un bacio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good point. The only other problem is that our department is looking for
ways to cut back and so asking for _anything_ to my immediate superiors
seems risky in their eyes.
Certainly there are people on their level in other departments who
wholeheartedly agree with me and even the people right
We have one machine that is currently handleing about that many users.
It runs Debian 3.0 stable, sendmail, spamassassin (if anyone has a
better spam fillter let me know), imap and pop, and the load average is
rarely above 0.7. Most of the load comes from spamassassin. Which
seems to be normal.
Lauchlin Wilkinson dijo:
As I said, the most cpu hungry app is the spam filtering.
Try Amavis on top of that! ;-)
--
.''`. Girl, you gotta change your crazy ways, you hear me?
: :' :Crazy by Aerosmith
`. `'Proudly running Debian
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:08:43AM -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote:
What OS are you using? Presumably if it was Linux you would have
solved the problem with iptables or ipchains long ago...
Solaris 9 :( It does have some firewalling software but caused some
major conflicts at one point with no
There are also cheap ($100) NAT routers / firewalls available like
D-Link or Netgear if you don't need a speed 10Mbps
You'll have to spend $100, but it won't consume you time, it takes a lot
less space, and it will consume a lot less electricity.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Craig
Russell Coker wrote:
I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use
fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the reliability
issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry about).
Are you using mboxes under /var/spool/mail, or are
Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a
mail server for N users?
I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things
for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to
suit. \:
I'm looking at a thousand users, but
If its of any help, at my last firm, we had 1000 email domains all using
different setup's their were 900 pop accounts checking their mail every
5 - 10 mins our set up was
Sendmail 8.11
Debian 3.0 kernel 2.4.18
intel 550Mhz
256Mb Ram
40Gb Hd
Machine load never above 0.7
Asher Densmore-Lynn
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:27, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote:
Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a
mail server for N users?
I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things
for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote:
Email doesn't really need much processing, but does take surprisingly large
amounts of disk space.
Obviously such things differ depending on exactly who is using the service and
what they are doing.
But my experience is that with modern disks a
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:59, Rich Puhek wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use
fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the
reliability issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry
about).
That's exactly what I needed to hear. I appreciate the prompt replies.
Thank you.
--
Asher Densmore-Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We have one machine that is currently handleing about that many users.
It runs Debian 3.0 stable, sendmail, spamassassin (if anyone has a
better spam fillter let me know), imap and pop, and the load average is
rarely above 0.7. Most of the load comes from spamassassin. Which
seems to be normal.
Lauchlin Wilkinson dijo:
As I said, the most cpu hungry app is the spam filtering.
Try Amavis on top of that! ;-)
--
.''`. Girl, you gotta change your crazy ways, you hear me?
: :' :Crazy by Aerosmith
`. `'Proudly running Debian
20 matches
Mail list logo
