> "Jameson" == Jameson Williams writes:
Jameson> Hm, I'll be damned. Truncate is part of coreutils, but /is/ relatively
new
Jameson> (2008)! Here's where it got merged:
Jameson>
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=75e0047c4b916393b6be3cb985c4c4d4a2d1a836
Wait... *GNU*
On 08/17/2011 08:51 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Daniel> truncate -s0 *
>
> "man truncate"
>
> Not found.
>
> You're using some weird OS.
Hm, I'll be damned. Truncate is part of coreutils, but /is/ relatively
new (2008)! Here's where it got merged:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.g
> "Jameson" == Jameson Williams writes:
Jameson> Agreed. /var/log definitely has some nesting, though (below). But
that's no
Jameson> excuse for me not to learn Perl. :-)
Then why did you asy "a directory"? The subject line already says it.
Please be more precise. A directory tree is *no
> "Jameson" == Jameson Williams writes:
Jameson>find . -type f -exec truncate -s 0 {} \;
Jameson> rm * might otherwise work well in most settings, but probably doesn't
meet the
Jameson> spec of the original one-liner problem statement. :-)
Find is overkill if you're not descending dir
On 08/17/2011 06:52 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Jameson> I haven't been able to get this one yet.
> Jameson> Challenge: A one-line statement (pipes okay, but explicit loops not)
> Jameson> that empties all found files (as for debugging with /var/log,
> Jameson> perse).
> Randal> In a singl
On 08/17/2011 08:10 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Find is overkill if you're not descending directories.
>
>perl -e 'open F, ">$_" for @ARGV' *
Agreed. /var/log definitely has some nesting, though (below). But that's
no excuse for me not to learn Perl. :-)
jameson@orange:/var/log$ sudo
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 06:52:20PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > "Jameson" == Jameson Williams writes:
>
> Jameson> I haven't been able to get this one yet.
> Jameson> Challenge: A one-line statement (pipes okay, but explicit loops not)
> Jameson> that empties all found files (as for
Hmm, people are being kinda quiet...
There is code at the beginning of this thread, but trust me when I say
there isn't a lot of code.
Well, the DNS checking is increasing my rejection rate. Figuring out if
I'm blocking at the right times is another issue. Is there ever a
situation where a PTR
> "Jameson" == Jameson Williams writes:
Jameson> I haven't been able to get this one yet.
Jameson> Challenge: A one-line statement (pipes okay, but explicit loops not)
Jameson> that empties all found files (as for debugging with /var/log,
Jameson> perse).
In a single directory?
"rm *".
Wh
> "Kevin" == Kevin K writes:
Kevin> My manager is opening a new req for a mid-sr level perl developer
Kevin> for a operations group, supporting RHEL and FreeBSD servers. We
Kevin> are still working with HR to get the job listed on the website,
Kevin> but here is a job description:
Please ple
> "Michael" == Michael C Robinson writes:
Michael> Should I go ahead and block if there's no reverse PTR record?
Only if you want to lose about 10% of legitmate mail.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltal
My perl based subroutine that does Net::DNS based checking follows,
comments please...
sub dns_rev_resolve()
{ # Check for a PTR record and try to match it up with an A query...
($ipsrc)=@_;
my $target_IP = join('.', reverse split(/\./,
$ipsrc)).".in-addr.arpa";
my $res = Net::DNS::R
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 09:34 -0700, Russell Johnson wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:20 PM, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
>
> > Is it
> > legitimate for their to be no reverse record when one site is hosted on
> > the IP block of another?
>
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of DNS admins out there that
On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:20 PM, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
> Is it
> legitimate for their to be no reverse record when one site is hosted on
> the IP block of another?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of DNS admins out there that don't reverse list
their forward tables.
Russell Johnson
r...@dimsta
On Aug 16, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
> A curious question, shouldn't I be able to look up any IP that is
> claiming to be a mail server via the DNS system?
In theory, yes. In practice, no. The only mail server records that have to be
there are MX records, and those only say
:~$ dig ebay.com mx
; <<>> DiG 9.7.2-P2 <<>> ebay.com mx
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 16443
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ebay.com. IN MX
;; ANSWER
Apparently I'm not supposed to reject email when there is no reverse PTR
record. Can I have my Perl script add a line to the email headers that
says essentially, reverse resolution failed? I'm using iptables QUEUE
on SMTP connection packets. What I'm asking is, what is the extent of
what I have
17 matches
Mail list logo
