On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:23:07AM +0200, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet)
wrote:
> Isn't being able to use whois for all TLDs too (at a stretch)?
I remember a time when you had to manually specify which server to
query for whois data. whois -h server foo.eu or whois [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
fedo
On 4/10/06, Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 23:59 +0200, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet)
> wrote:
> >
> > The tzdata update wan't a security issue either. I reckon this is an
> > issue at least somewhat like the tzdata issue.
> >
>
> Time being correct is somethin
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 23:59 +0200, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet)
wrote:
The tzdata update wan't a security issue either. I reckon this is an
issue at least somewhat like the tzdata issue.
Time being correct is something of a security issue, at a stretch.
Isn't bein
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 23:59 +0200, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet)
wrote:
>
> The tzdata update wan't a security issue either. I reckon this is an
> issue at least somewhat like the tzdata issue.
>
Time being correct is something of a security issue, at a stretch.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE
David Rees wrote:
On 4/10/06, Danny Terweij - Net Tuning | Net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have : jwhois-3.2.2-6.FC3.1
And whois on .eu fails (falling back to default whois server).
When i add in jwhois.conf the following line :
"\\.eu$" = "whois.eu";
Then it works.
Time for an j
On 4/10/06, Danny Terweij - Net Tuning | Net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have : jwhois-3.2.2-6.FC3.1
>
> And whois on .eu fails (falling back to default whois server).
>
> When i add in jwhois.conf the following line :
>
>"\\.eu$" = "whois.eu";
>
> Then it works.
>
> Time for an jwhois
Could it perhaps be the /etc/mail/submit.cf file that was the problem?
I'm not sure how nmh submits the mail (via local sendmail invocation,
or via port 25, or via port 587, etc. Each could have its own problems
(missing symlink, bad .cf files, etc).
If sendmail.mc is compiled will the proble
Quoting Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have volunteered some time for test if
I will assume you mean the second part of QA, the "verify" step.
Well, perhaps I used the word "test" in a technical sense.
In my background,
Quoting Parker Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Problem: Sending mail failed after the update. I send locally using
nmh. Restarting sendmail didn't help. Receiving appeared to be
unaffected.
Quick fix: After waiting several days hoping the problem would just go
away, I had to do something about it.
i did install the first package too and after restarting it gave some errors
which were easily fixed by adding a few settings to the old mc file and
rebuilding the cf file from it.
can anybody advise me on what steps to take in order to have the second
package install without to many problems?
Hi all,
After following a lot of the conversations here, and having FC boxes for
servers, I can tell you that a LOT of our customers did NOT expect and
know that there was such a short timeline per release. They thought they
could keep running FC1 for a long time, so a lot of them fell for FC1 at
Just to point out some potential issues (depending on upgrade paths, etc).
Some old sendmail configurations kept files in /etc/ while newer
configurations
keep these files in /etc/mail/ instead. A similar problem might exist for
some files moved from /etc/ or /etc/mail/ to /var/run et al. T
Hi,
I have : jwhois-3.2.2-6.FC3.1
And whois on .eu fails (falling back to default whois server).
When i add in jwhois.conf the following line :
"\\.eu$" = "whois.eu";
Then it works.
Time for an jwhois package update?
Danny.
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redha
On 2006-04-10 15:00:23 +0200, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet) wrote:
> Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>
> >BTW, is there somewhere a complete up-to-date description of the spec
> >file? The file above is just a "what's new since some unspecified
> >release" file, and RPM to the max is now over 5 years o
Peter J. Holzer wrote:
BTW, is there somewhere a complete up-to-date description of the spec
file? The file above is just a "what's new since some unspecified
release" file, and RPM to the max is now over 5 years old.
See the documentation section on the frontpage of http://www.rpm.org/
Nils.
On 2006-04-10 11:53:04 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On 10/04/2006 Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > > That's when the config file has essential changes for the updated
> > > package to work at all, and hence must be installed. The rpmsave
> > > file is there as a hint that you need to merge your previo
On 10/04/2006 Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > That's when the config file has essential changes for the updated
> > package to work at all, and hence must be installed. The rpmsave
> > file is there as a hint that you need to merge your previous changes with
> > the new format.
>
> How does RPM decid
On Apr 10, 2006, at 12:29 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
[snip]
Honestly, I feel that supporting FC1 for so long was a mistake.
It set a precedence that I really don't want to continue. Legacy
picked a time
Parker Jones wrote:
>>> The 5th April sendmail update screwed up mail on my RH-7.3 box.
>
> Problem: Sending mail failed after the update. I send locally using
> nmh. Restarting sendmail didn't help. Receiving appeared to be unaffected.
>
> Quick fix: After waiting several days hoping the proble
On 2006-04-10 09:38:18 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:
> Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > [0] Or sometimes, they are replaced and your file is renamed to
> > .rpmsave. I still haven't figured out when that happens.
>
> That's when the config file has essential changes for the updated
> package to work at a
Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>
> [0] Or sometimes, they are replaced and your file is renamed to
> .rpmsave. I still haven't figured out when that happens.
That's when the config file has essential changes for the updated
package to work at all, and hence must be installed. The rpmsave file is
there a
On 2006-04-10 13:45:01 +1200, Parker Jones wrote:
> Is the sendmail.mc replaced during the update? Should there be a backup of
> the
> old version e.g as sendmail.mc.rpmnew? I didn't find one. Why is there a
> sendmail.cf.rpmnew and not a sendmail.mc.rpmnew?
Configuration files are silently
22 matches
Mail list logo
