hifalutin,inactive
75%off for all New Softwares.
WindowXP,Photoshop,Window2003...etcMore
http://www.knowingly.ds.barely.EDJIHJEM.info/?uJw3wfu1eyBTMuuhesitantly
Opt-out:
http://www.overwhelmingly.xr.overwhelmingly.EDJIHJEM.info/frozen?i1knQ3iR2SpHAOirevered|[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
someone quahog
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the internet
and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled nat and my
customers are able to browse the internet well (My customer are cyber cafe owners).
I've limited their bandwidth. The
how about limiting on MAC addresses :?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the internet
and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled nat and my
customers are able to browse
On Monday 28 June 2004 20.56, Joris wrote:
I noticed the following just now in my apache logs:
[...]
Notice the very uncool double reverse resolve of that ip:
AFAIK such double reverse resolves are, while uncommon, perfectly legal.
I don't know what's the dominant feeling on this right now...
I think I've got a little confused. For example I hit the following:
iptables -P FORWARD DROP
iptables -A FORWARD -s xx:xx:xx:xx -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
xx would be the hardware address.
Now wouldn't he be able to change the ip and still be connected because he still has
the same hardware mac
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:38:58PM +0545, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the internet
and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled nat and my
customers are able to browse the internet well (My
Hi Michelle,
I have an external RAID system, and as such do not need a RAID
controller...
Would you still use the ICP vortex to connect 1 disk?
Andrew
On 28.06.2004, at 18:01, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2004-06-28 16:12:19, schrieb Andrew Miehs:
Hi all,
What SCSI controller is recommended
Hi Ritesh,
Maybe subenetting is a solution for you so that you only have x ip's
available for your network.
Cheers,
Kevin.
John Hedges wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:38:58PM +0545, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to
Hi everybody..
sorry by may english, but I am brazilian
I'd like to know how the email server works with thousand users... lvm???
how storage de inbox with 500Mb size and with 1 users???
thanks.
Gustavo.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Am 2004-06-29 10:51:24, schrieb Andrew Miehs:
Hi Michelle,
I have an external RAID system, and as such do not need a RAID
controller...
Nice, I like to have one too...
Would you still use the ICP vortex to connect 1 disk?
OK, it will be a little bit Overkill...
But there are peoples with
Am 2004-06-29 09:49:12, schrieb Gustavo Polillo:
Hi everybody..
sorry by may english, but I am brazilian
I'd like to know how the email server works with thousand users... lvm???
how storage de inbox with 500Mb size and with 1 users???
Sorry, but nobody puts 10.000 $USER
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:49, Gustavo Polillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to know how the email server works with thousand users...
Quite easily usually. When you get to 200,000 users things get more
difficult, but 1000 is not much by today's standards.
lvm??? how storage de inbox with
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:16, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2004-06-29 09:49:12, schrieb Gustavo Polillo:
Hi everybody..
sorry by may english, but I am brazilian
I'd like to know how the email server works with thousand users...
lvm??? how storage de inbox with
Best to use 2U machines with the maximum number of disks IMHO. A 2U machine
should be able to have 5 disks.
I say: 9 Disks without problems. e.g. pcicase
http://www.pcicase.de/catalog/produktweb/IPC-C2-X/IPC-C2D.htm
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Francisco Castillo wrote:
I'm novice on debian, i have decided recently to change from redhat
or mandrake (fatal experiencie in two years), so excuse my ignorance.
Having recently gone through a similar change, I may be able to help a
little more.
First i dont know how to do this step The
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 09:58:52AM -0500, Alex Borges said
Whats realy baking my noodle is, how the hell did this email got to us.
The spam might have forged a From: address of [EMAIL PROTECTED], or maybe
the victim googled for the spam body and found it stored in the list
archives.
--
Words
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 02:35:55PM -0400, Dan MacNeil said
The primary goal is collaberation not spying so I could setup telnet
limited to local host follow the fine man, but this seems an extra
step...
Screen does an excellent job of this; read the multiuser session
section of it's info page
Hi
I am using a Sangoma Wanpipe wide area networking card in a Debian
based firewall.
The wanpipe packages and associated kernel patches in the Debian
distribution are way out of date and appear to have been orphaned.
So I have downloaded tzg files from Sangoma, patched the kernel
compiled
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:09:09 -0500, Enrique wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:35:40 +0200
Christoph Löffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Fraancisco:
The first thinng you must do is to install a kernel with IPTABLES
support, the ipchains is not recomendable for
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:38:58 +0545 (NPT), Ritesh wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x)
to the internet and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers.
I've enabled nat and my customers are able to browse the
On June 26, 2004 05:27 pm, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
Just a note. Since these are infected machines, a first test could just to
try to call back the other server, to see if it replyes to port 25.
Being unable to connect to port 25 doesn't mean anything. AFAIK there is no
RFC or other standard
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 08:21:31PM +0200, Robert Cates wrote:
Hi,
I don't exactly like the idea of having to setup a mini-system in
everybodies home dir, so maybe the Jailkit will be the answer.(?) Somehow
I'm a little surprised that the OpenSSH project hasn't provided this feature
in SSH and
hifalutin,inactive
75%off for all New Softwares.
WindowXP,Photoshop,Window2003...etcMore
http://www.knowingly.ds.barely.EDJIHJEM.info/?uJw3wfu1eyBTMuuhesitantly
Opt-out:
http://www.overwhelmingly.xr.overwhelmingly.EDJIHJEM.info/frozen?i1knQ3iR2SpHAOirevered|debian-isp@lists.debian.org
someone
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the
internet and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled
nat and my customers are able to browse the internet well (My customer are
cyber cafe owners). I've limited their bandwidth. The
how about limiting on MAC addresses :?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the
internet and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled
nat and my customers are able to browse
On Monday 28 June 2004 20.56, Joris wrote:
I noticed the following just now in my apache logs:
[...]
Notice the very uncool double reverse resolve of that ip:
AFAIK such double reverse resolves are, while uncommon, perfectly legal.
I don't know what's the dominant feeling on this right now...
I think I've got a little confused. For example I hit the following:
iptables -P FORWARD DROP
iptables -A FORWARD -s xx:xx:xx:xx -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
xx would be the hardware address.
Now wouldn't he be able to change the ip and still be connected because he
still has the same hardware mac
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:38:58PM +0545, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the
internet and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled
nat and my customers are able to browse the internet well (My
Hi Michelle,
I have an external RAID system, and as such do not need a RAID
controller...
Would you still use the ICP vortex to connect 1 disk?
Andrew
On 28.06.2004, at 18:01, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2004-06-28 16:12:19, schrieb Andrew Miehs:
Hi all,
What SCSI controller is recommended
Hi Ritesh,
Maybe subenetting is a solution for you so that you only have x ip's
available for your network.
Cheers,
Kevin.
John Hedges wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:38:58PM +0545, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:49, Gustavo Polillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to know how the email server works with thousand users...
Quite easily usually. When you get to 200,000 users things get more
difficult, but 1000 is not much by today's standards.
lvm??? how storage de inbox with
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:16, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2004-06-29 09:49:12, schrieb Gustavo Polillo:
Hi everybody..
sorry by may english, but I am brazilian
I'd like to know how the email server works with thousand users...
lvm??? how storage de inbox with
Best to use 2U machines with the maximum number of disks IMHO. A 2U machine
should be able to have 5 disks.
I say: 9 Disks without problems. e.g. pcicase
http://www.pcicase.de/catalog/produktweb/IPC-C2-X/IPC-C2D.htm
Francisco Castillo wrote:
I'm novice on debian, i have decided recently to change from redhat
or mandrake (fatal experiencie in two years), so excuse my ignorance.
Having recently gone through a similar change, I may be able to help a
little more.
First i dont know how to do this step The
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 02:35:55PM -0400, Dan MacNeil said
The primary goal is collaberation not spying so I could setup telnet
limited to local host follow the fine man, but this seems an extra
step...
Screen does an excellent job of this; read the multiuser session
section of it's info page
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 09:58:52AM -0500, Alex Borges said
Whats realy baking my noodle is, how the hell did this email got to us.
The spam might have forged a From: address of [EMAIL PROTECTED], or maybe
the victim googled for the spam body and found it stored in the list
archives.
--
Words
Hi
I am using a Sangoma Wanpipe wide area networking card in a Debian
based firewall.
The wanpipe packages and associated kernel patches in the Debian
distribution are way out of date and appear to have been orphaned.
So I have downloaded tzg files from Sangoma, patched the kernel
compiled
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:09:09 -0500, Enrique wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:35:40 +0200
Christoph Löffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Fraancisco:
The first thinng you must do is to install a kernel with IPTABLES
support, the ipchains is not recomendable for
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:38:58 +0545 (NPT), Ritesh wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x)
to the internet and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers.
I've enabled nat and my customers are able to browse the
On June 26, 2004 05:27 pm, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
Just a note. Since these are infected machines, a first test could just to
try to call back the other server, to see if it replyes to port 25.
Being unable to connect to port 25 doesn't mean anything. AFAIK there is no
RFC or other standard
40 matches
Mail list logo
