On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Dewey Hylton wrote:
> for some of my remote customers, as well as my own office, i'm looking for an
> out-of-band management solution that's cheaper than iLO or DRAC. remote power
> management would be nice, but network KVM is a must. i read about intel vpro
> /
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Devin Ceartas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Devin Ceartas wrote:
>
>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Tyler Morgan wrote:
>>
>> > On 11/2/2012 6:39 AM, Devin Ceartas wrote:
>> >> hp laptop with Intel SSD won't boot under 5.2 - the problem reported on
>> >>
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Devin Ceartas wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Tyler Morgan wrote:
>
> > On 11/2/2012 6:39 AM, Devin Ceartas wrote:
> >> hp laptop with Intel SSD won't boot under 5.2 - the problem reported on
> >>
> >> screen appears to be the one described here:
> >>
> >>
> h
Just upgraded to 5.2 on one of our backup firewalls, and we are having
issues with hosts that are being checked with ICMP:
Nov 2 14:58:38 fw02 relayd[30621]: table radius: 1 added, 1 deleted, 0
changed, 0 killed
Nov 2 14:58:38 fw02 relayd[5280]: recv_icmp: forged icmp packet?
Nov 2 14:58:48
for some of my remote customers, as well as my own office, i'm looking for an
out-of-band management solution that's cheaper than iLO or DRAC. remote power
management would be nice, but network KVM is a must. i read about intel vpro /
amt recently and just started looking into it; it seems to be
On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Tyler Morgan wrote:
> On 11/2/2012 6:39 AM, Devin Ceartas wrote:
>> hp laptop with Intel SSD won't boot under 5.2 - the problem reported on
>>
>> screen appears to be the one described here:
>>
>> http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Fwd%3A--mSATA-failure-on-6501-w--OpenBSD-5.
On 11/2/2012 6:39 AM, Devin Ceartas wrote:
hp laptop with Intel SSD won't boot under 5.2 - the problem reported on
screen appears to be the one described here:
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Fwd%3A--mSATA-failure-on-6501-w--OpenBSD-5.0-td32881415.html#a32884546
ahci0: stopping the port, softres
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:55:56AM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> When you required rDNS I bet false positives went up by a factor of
> 1000.
No, legitimate traffic remained steady and not a single complaint was
registered. YMMV.
Back on topic, in my personal experience, spamd is more effective
hp laptop with Intel SSD won't boot under 5.2 - the problem reported on
screen appears to be the one described here:
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Fwd%3A--mSATA-failure-on-6501-w--OpenBSD-5.0-td32881415.html#a32884546
ahci0: stopping the port, softreset slot 31 was still active.
ahci0: failed
Description: I have two very identical box with integrated wlan.
One of them have ral device and there is no problem with it:
ral0 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 "Ralink RT3090" rev 0x00: apic 2 int 16,
address 00:12:0e:b1:6e:c7
ral0: MAC/BBP RT3071 (rev 0x0213), RF RT3020 (MIMO 1T1R)
I'm able to work
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Devin Ceartas wrote:
> hp laptop with Intel SSD won't boot under 5.2 - the problem reported on
Do you have a chance to try current snapshot on that?
>
> screen appears to be the one described here:
>
> http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Fwd%3A--mSATA-failure-on-6501-w--O
hp laptop with Intel SSD won't boot under 5.2 - the problem reported on
screen appears to be the one described here:
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Fwd%3A--mSATA-failure-on-6501-w--OpenBSD-5.0-td32881415.html#a32884546
ahci0: stopping the port, softreset slot 31 was still active.
ahci0: failed
On 11/01/2012 07:04 AM, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
untarring the sets and copying the kernel by hand is not recommended.
I used the perfect phrase for this in a presentation on PF a week ago:
"You wouldn't ever do this... unless maybe you hate yourself."
--Kurt
Err, I do
> For instance on one mailserver I took over, I noticed that after adding
> a Spamhaus sbl-xbl check, required rDNS, and other basic stuff like
> requiring a legitimate HELO/EHLO, spam attempts dropped by perhaps a
> factor of 100. It was shocking.
>
Required rDNS, so false positives went up by
I just put this in my .profile :
echo "running X ..." && /bin/sleep 5 && /usr/X11R6/bin/startx
--
Wesley
Le 2012-11-02 9:25, Wesley a écrit :
Le 2012-10-31 17:30, MERIGHI Marcus a écrit :
I would try in .Xdefaults
XTerm*loginShell:false
OR
you could do the following in .profile:
pgrep -f -
> For instance on one mailserver I took over, I noticed that after adding
> a Spamhaus sbl-xbl check, required rDNS, and other basic stuff like
> requiring a legitimate HELO/EHLO, spam attempts dropped by perhaps a
> factor of 100. It was shocking.
>
When you required rDNS I bet false positives
> > > forward(5) of a_user (that's the one tried first)
> > > |/usr/local/bin/procmail
> > >
> > > after that delivery to b_user is not attempted.
> >
> > THis is relevant to my previous post: why is procmail
> > failing here in the first place? I find that procmail
> > always fails for me with
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 03:37:24PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Apr 14 19:48:24, mcmer-open...@tor.at wrote:
> > hello (opensmtpd-) folks,
> >
> > I think OpenSMTPd aborts delivery to multiple aliased recipients as soon
> > as a delivery attempt returns non-zero.
> > I consider this unwanted: a
* Andy Bradford (amb-open...@bradfords.org) wrote:
> Thus said Joakim Aronius on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:54:28 BST:
>
> > !!spamd
> > daemon.err;daemon.warn;daemon.info /var/log/spamd
> > daemon.err;daemon.warn;daemon.info @logserver
>
> A careful reading of
/ Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote on Thu 1.Nov'12 at 16:02:06 -0400 /
> Jan Stary wrote:
>
> >Strangely, the only occurence of 2.139.201.210 in the last month's
> >maillog is just this; that's half an hour after it got WHITE.
> >What happend at Mon Oct 29 14:49:24 CET 2012 that made it WHITE?
>
> >Anyway
20 matches
Mail list logo
