On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 14:16, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Let me see if I can clarify the issue for you.
I can work around this problem until SF upgrades to Mailman 2.1.x
-Tom
Tom Eastep\ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net
Washington USA \
On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 13:23, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2003, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 20:35, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > > However, I think
> > > attachments are a bigger problem with the software in use at SF.
> > >
> > > Suggestions as always are welcome.
> >
> > Additional
On 18 Dec 2003, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 20:35, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 19:15, Tom Eastep wrote:
> > > Mike -- It is I who am inconvenienced by this policy. I simply refuse to
> > > try to decipher an inline 500kb "shorewall status" output that some
> > > newbi
On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 12:26, George Metz wrote:
> Not really. Actually, I'd PROBABLY consider using that as an additional
> step, except that IIRC IPSec will handle all the auth. All this is
> really doing is preventing unauthorized users from using your net
> connection, whereas IPSec is actual
Mike,
Not really. Actually, I'd PROBABLY consider using that as an additional
step, except that IIRC IPSec will handle all the auth. All this is
really doing is preventing unauthorized users from using your net
connection, whereas IPSec is actually establishing a tunnel, allowing
you to send a
I'm trying to move a shell script over onto a leaf system. It used the
sort -k command on the previous box and from what I can tell the busybox
sort does not have that functionality. Is there any way to achieve the
same results with the switches given for the busybox sort?
On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 10:16, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 09:24, George Metz wrote:
> > Yeah, I know. I was more replying to someone else saying that WEP was
> > enough. It's clearly not.
>
> George,
> Is NoCatAuth/NoCatSplash an acceptable solution to wireless security?
>
> NoC
On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 09:24, George Metz wrote:
> Yeah, I know. I was more replying to someone else saying that WEP was
> enough. It's clearly not.
George,
Is NoCatAuth/NoCatSplash an acceptable solution to wireless security?
NoCat
http://nocat.net/
BTW, do we have a package for
Yeah, I know. I was more replying to someone else saying that WEP was
enough. It's clearly not.
The actual Access Point SHOULD work exactly like a standard ethernet
bridge/hub, so it should pass through the IPSec without issue. My
suggestion was more in the nature of "here's how you get it up q
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 22:03, Ray Olszewski wrote:
> In the end, I think Mike is right ... the problems with attachments
> outweigh the inconveniences from not having them. Unless ... just a
> blue-sky idea here ... the version of Mailman we use can rewrite attachment
> names so they all end in "
10 matches
Mail list logo
