Hi!
Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> > I am using woody + testing + some unstable:
> > in xterm/gnome-terminal usually I do (as normal user) xhost +
Matt Zimmerman écrivait :
> This disables access control in the X server. This is, almost always, a
> very bad idea.
A better way to allow it (when
Hi!
Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> > I am using woody + testing + some unstable:
> > in xterm/gnome-terminal usually I do (as normal user) xhost +
Matt Zimmerman écrivait :
> This disables access control in the X server. This is, almost always, a
> very bad idea.
A better way to allow it (when
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 12:32:40AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> You could have a proper MTA outside the chroots (like postfix or exim). And
> a bogus, stupid, cat-it-to-localhost-port-25 MTA inside the chroot, like
> ssmtp :-)
ok, that sounds better to me than unnecessary bloating
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002, Michael Ablassmeier wrote:
> i did some apache chroot environment (php,perl,ssl), and now
> some users want to use the php "mail" command, so i have to
> include some mta into the chroot.
You could have a proper MTA outside the chroots (like postfix or exim). And
a bogus, stup
This one time, at band camp, Michael Ablassmeier said:
> hi !..
>
> i did some apache chroot environment (php,perl,ssl), and now
> some users want to use the php "mail" command, so i have to
> include some mta into the chroot.
> As far as i know, Sendmail is not a good candiate to chroot.
>
> Wha
hi !..
i did some apache chroot environment (php,perl,ssl), and now
some users want to use the php "mail" command, so i have to
include some mta into the chroot.
As far as i know, Sendmail is not a good candiate to chroot.
What mta would you prefer ?
Any hints for me ?
Thanx !
--
greetings /*/ m
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 12:32:40AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> You could have a proper MTA outside the chroots (like postfix or exim). And
> a bogus, stupid, cat-it-to-localhost-port-25 MTA inside the chroot, like
> ssmtp :-)
ok, that sounds better to me than unnecessary bloating
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002, Michael Ablassmeier wrote:
> i did some apache chroot environment (php,perl,ssl), and now
> some users want to use the php "mail" command, so i have to
> include some mta into the chroot.
You could have a proper MTA outside the chroots (like postfix or exim). And
a bogus, stup
This one time, at band camp, Michael Ablassmeier said:
> hi !..
>
> i did some apache chroot environment (php,perl,ssl), and now
> some users want to use the php "mail" command, so i have to
> include some mta into the chroot.
> As far as i know, Sendmail is not a good candiate to chroot.
>
> Wha
hi !..
i did some apache chroot environment (php,perl,ssl), and now
some users want to use the php "mail" command, so i have to
include some mta into the chroot.
As far as i know, Sendmail is not a good candiate to chroot.
What mta would you prefer ?
Any hints for me ?
Thanx !
--
greetings /*/ m
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:53:10AM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> > xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
> > a named socket (/tmp/Xsomething), and Debian's X servers don't listen
> > in on a tcp socket by default (security. No chance of someone sniffing
> > your
Indeed. My mistake. I just verified that X wasn't listening in to
tcp/6000, xhost +'ed, and su -'ed, setup the display variable, and it
worked.
NM. I'm wrong. Seems something on this guy's end is borken.
-Joseph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"As far as Microsoft, we will never take a company ligh
On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 11:42, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
> xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
> a named socket (/tmp/Xsomething), and Debian's X servers don't listen
> in on a tcp socket by default (security. No chance of someone sniffing
> your password if nobody
> xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
> a named socket (/tmp/Xsomething), and Debian's X servers don't listen
> in on a tcp socket by default (security. No chance of someone sniffing
> your password if nobody can connect remotely!). Thus, xhost won't work.
>
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:53:10AM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> > xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
> > a named socket (/tmp/Xsomething), and Debian's X servers don't listen
> > in on a tcp socket by default (security. No chance of someone sniffing
> > your
>From Ivan Brezina on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
>Another possibility is:
>su -c vim-gtk
>you can also use xhost +username for allowing users to connect to our
>Xserver. But this does not work for me on Debian.
xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
a named socket (/t
Indeed. My mistake. I just verified that X wasn't listening in to
tcp/6000, xhost +'ed, and su -'ed, setup the display variable, and it
worked.
NM. I'm wrong. Seems something on this guy's end is borken.
-Joseph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"As far as Microsoft, we will never take a company ligh
On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 11:42, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
> xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
> a named socket (/tmp/Xsomething), and Debian's X servers don't listen
> in on a tcp socket by default (security. No chance of someone sniffing
> your password if nobody
> xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
> a named socket (/tmp/Xsomething), and Debian's X servers don't listen
> in on a tcp socket by default (security. No chance of someone sniffing
> your password if nobody can connect remotely!). Thus, xhost won't work.
>
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
> >From Norbert Preining on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
> >I think that vim-gtk tries to open a window, recognizes that this
> >doesn't work (authorization) and starts normal text mode vi.
>
> Probably the easiest way to do this is, instead of using su/
>From Ivan Brezina on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
>Another possibility is:
>su -c vim-gtk
>you can also use xhost +username for allowing users to connect to our
>Xserver. But this does not work for me on Debian.
xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
a named socket (/t
>From Norbert Preining on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
>I think that vim-gtk tries to open a window, recognizes that this
>doesn't work (authorization) and starts normal text mode vi.
Probably the easiest way to do this is, instead of using su/sudo, run
ssh -X localhost. It'll tunnel your X apps
This one time, at band camp, Steve Johnson said:
> No, but I have noticed when i open an xterm, su to root and run
> vi(vim-gtk), whenever I quit vi, i get this.
>
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
> Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Server
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refu
On Fre, 08 Nov 2002, Steve Johnson wrote:
> No, but I have noticed when i open an xterm, su to root and run
> vi(vim-gtk), whenever I quit vi, i get this.
>
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
> Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Server
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by
No, but I have noticed when i open an xterm, su to root and run
vi(vim-gtk), whenever I quit vi, i get this.
Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Server
Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Se
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
> >From Norbert Preining on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
> >I think that vim-gtk tries to open a window, recognizes that this
> >doesn't work (authorization) and starts normal text mode vi.
>
> Probably the easiest way to do this is, instead of using su/
>From Norbert Preining on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
>I think that vim-gtk tries to open a window, recognizes that this
>doesn't work (authorization) and starts normal text mode vi.
Probably the easiest way to do this is, instead of using su/sudo, run
ssh -X localhost. It'll tunnel your X apps
This one time, at band camp, Steve Johnson said:
> No, but I have noticed when i open an xterm, su to root and run
> vi(vim-gtk), whenever I quit vi, i get this.
>
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
> Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Server
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refu
On Fre, 08 Nov 2002, Steve Johnson wrote:
> No, but I have noticed when i open an xterm, su to root and run
> vi(vim-gtk), whenever I quit vi, i get this.
>
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
> Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Server
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by
No, but I have noticed when i open an xterm, su to root and run
vi(vim-gtk), whenever I quit vi, i get this.
Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Server
Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Se
30 matches
Mail list logo
