On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 07:16, Peter Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:57PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote:
[...]
> >> If the volume is higher or you just want a linux box then:
> >> www.linuxrouter.org -- linux router project.
> >
> >LRP is dea
Hi Teun,
had a look at the link
Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2
I dont want to use 2 'db' files to store the same usernames and passwords,
and as I said, I dont want them in Mysql or /etc/passwd
- hmmm... was hoping to find a package that I wouldnt have to mainta
Burner, Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:20:37PM +0100:
> Hi
>
> My boos just asked me to build a Linux firewall to protect our servers, we
> have about 20 servers, all configured with only the public (internet) IP, and
> connected through a switch directly to our IPS's router.
> I've only build firewal
On Wednesday 05 March 2003 19:54, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2003 11:20, Burner wrote:
> > I would like to keep the public IP addresses on the servers if possible.
>
> Your servers can keep their public addresses if you wish, that should make
> the job of firewalling a little ea
Hi Teun,
had a look at the link
Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2
I dont want to use 2 'db' files to store the same usernames and passwords,
and as I said, I dont want them in Mysql or /etc/passwd
- hmmm... was hoping to find a package that I wouldnt have to mainta
Burner, Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:20:37PM +0100:
> Hi
>
> My boos just asked me to build a Linux firewall to protect our servers, we
> have about 20 servers, all configured with only the public (internet) IP, and
> connected through a switch directly to our IPS's router.
> I've only build firewal
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:57PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote:
>> You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a
>> contridiction.
>>
>> If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work.
>> There will be
Thanks for the quick answer :)
On Wednesday 05 March 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote:
> You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a
> contridiction.
>
load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is webcontent.
> If the volume is small, many of th
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote:
> You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a
> contridiction.
>
> If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work.
> There will be some work redirecting IP through the firewall.
>
> If the volume is
On Wednesday 05 March 2003 11:20, Burner wrote:
> I would like to keep the public IP addresses on the servers if possible.
Your servers can keep their public addresses if you wish, that should make the
job of firewalling a little easier (no masquerading to worry about).
Let's say you had a publ
On Wednesday 05 March 2003 19:54, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2003 11:20, Burner wrote:
> > I would like to keep the public IP addresses on the servers if possible.
>
> Your servers can keep their public addresses if you wish, that should make
> the job of firewalling a little ea
like Greg(ory) says, knowing the volume is important -- or at least
tell us what kind of connection you have to your ISP -- dial up ;-),
DSL, ISDN, Cable, T1, T3. If DSL or Cable, do you know what kind of
uplink and downlink bandwidth you are allowed (or use)?
Randy Kramer
On Wednesday 05 Ma
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:57PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote:
>> You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a
>> contridiction.
>>
>> If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work.
>> There will be
Thanks for the quick answer :)
On Wednesday 05 March 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote:
> You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a
> contridiction.
>
load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is webcontent.
> If the volume is small, many of th
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote:
> You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a
> contridiction.
>
> If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work.
> There will be some work redirecting IP through the firewall.
>
> If the volume is
On Wednesday 05 March 2003 11:20, Burner wrote:
> I would like to keep the public IP addresses on the servers if possible.
Your servers can keep their public addresses if you wish, that should make the
job of firewalling a little easier (no masquerading to worry about).
Let's say you had a publ
You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a
contridiction.
If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work. There
will be some work redirecting IP through the firewall.
If the volume is higher or you just want a linux box then:
www.linuxrouter.
like Greg(ory) says, knowing the volume is important -- or at least
tell us what kind of connection you have to your ISP -- dial up ;-),
DSL, ISDN, Cable, T1, T3. If DSL or Cable, do you know what kind of
uplink and downlink bandwidth you are allowed (or use)?
Randy Kramer
On Wednesday 05 Ma
Hi
My boos just asked me to build a Linux firewall to protect our servers, we
have about 20 servers, all configured with only the public (internet) IP, and
connected through a switch directly to our IPS's router.
I've only build firewalls for small lan networks using NAT with
iptables/ipchains.
You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a
contridiction.
If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work. There
will be some work redirecting IP through the firewall.
If the volume is higher or you just want a linux box then:
www.linuxrouter.
Hi
My boos just asked me to build a Linux firewall to protect our servers, we
have about 20 servers, all configured with only the public (internet) IP, and
connected through a switch directly to our IPS's router.
I've only build firewalls for small lan networks using NAT with
iptables/ipchains.
Finally I have solved the problem destroying the security :-)
To allow access to /etc/shadow file, now Postfix user ('postfix') runs as
member or shadow group, and that's all: now it runs ok.
So I want to know if anybody uses that configuration (postfix as shadow
groups, or /etc/shadow read
Finally I have solved the problem destroying the security :-)
To allow access to /etc/shadow file, now Postfix user ('postfix') runs as
member or shadow group, and that's all: now it runs ok.
So I want to know if anybody uses that configuration (postfix as shadow
groups, or /etc/shadow read
23 matches
Mail list logo
