Good day,
Normally my team uses the "ntpstat" utility to check that systems are in
sync and so on. Usually we use the one provided by our OS vendor, but
in a particular case we require the latest stable ntpd build because of
a bugfix that affects some of our systems. The "old" build of ntpsta
On 2011-02-03, Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
> Can someone point me to the authoritative location for ntpstat source
> code? Search engines have not served me well in this regard, to much
> confusion with the "ntpstats" directory.
http://people.redhat.com/rkeech/#ntpstat
I'm adding this to http://supp
On 2/2/2011 7:07 PM, Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
Good day,
Normally my team uses the "ntpstat" utility to check that systems are in
sync and so on. Usually we use the one provided by our OS vendor, but
in a particular case we require the latest stable ntpd build because of
a bugfix that affects som
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:07:19PM -0700, Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
> Normally my team uses the "ntpstat" utility to check that systems are in
> sync and so on. Usually we use the one provided by our OS vendor, but
> in a particular case we require the latest stable ntpd build because of
> a bugfix th
Thank you gentlemen. Patches and the new link on ntp.org are exactly
what I needed.
-Bryan
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please notify the
sender
and delete all copies immediately. The sender believes this message and any
attachments
were sent free of any virus
Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
Good day,
Normally my team uses the "ntpstat" utility to check that systems are in
sync and so on. Usually we use the one provided by our OS vendor, but
in a particular case we require the latest stable ntpd build because of
a bugfix that affects some of our systems.
On 2011-02-03, Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
> Thank you gentlemen. Patches and the new link on ntp.org are exactly
> what I needed.
>
> -Bryan
Could you please remover the following stuff from your postings on the
net? It is totally inappropriate ( or do you really waht the 500
people who do not wa
Not only is it inappropriate is it complete bull+++t. The short of
it is that contracts are only valid if both parties agree that they
are valid so you can't put one on the end of emails and expect it to
"stick". What if I were wrong?
OK just in case I'm wrong,,,
Be reading this email you agr
unruh wrote:
On 2011-02-03, Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
Thank you gentlemen. Patches and the new link on ntp.org are exactly
what I needed.
-Bryan
Could you please remover the following stuff from your postings on the
Referring to bogus confidentiality notices.
Unfortunately, many professional
Chris Albertson wrote:
Not only is it inappropriate is it complete bull+++t. The short of
it is that contracts are only valid if both parties agree that they
are valid so you can't put one on the end of emails and expect it to
"stick". What if I were wrong?
OK just in case I'm wrong,,,
Be r
Chris Albertson wrote:
> Not only is it inappropriate is it complete bull+++t. The short of
> it is that contracts are only valid if both parties agree that they
> are valid so you can't put one on the end of emails and expect it to
> "stick".
In certain limited contexts these things actually d
p.org
[mailto:questions-bounces+bryan.schmidt=travelport@lists.ntp.org] On
Behalf Of John Hasler
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 7:16 AM
To: questions@lists.ntp.org
Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] ntpstat source code master location?
Chris Albertson wrote:
> Not only is it inappropriate is it
>
> Unfortunately, many professional bodies tell their members that it is
> legally unsafe to do otherwise than include these notices. If I posted from
> my office, I would have one. There is no point in asking IT to suppress it,
We can ask that people don't post from email accounts that append
Chris Albertson wrote:
nonsense to outgoing messages. It is very easy and free to get a
gmail or yahoo mail account.
At least in the past, they were blocked from the office, as inbound mail
through them would bypass the email virus checker.
As it probably wasn't made clear. These are not a
David Woolley writes:
> As it probably wasn't made clear. These are not about forming a
> contract, but about denying people a defence that they didn't know the
> message was confidential.
But if they are unrelated third parties they need no defense (at least
in the USA). In circumstances such a
On 2011-02-04, Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
> Sorry to have offended some of you, corp email system appends that
> whether I like it or not. Next time I'll ask my question from a
> different email account.
>
> Try not to get so worked up unruh / Chris!
Not worked up, just astonished and disgusted. And
On 2011-02-04, John Hasler wrote:
> David Woolley writes:
>> As it probably wasn't made clear. These are not about forming a
>> contract, but about denying people a defence that they didn't know the
>> message was confidential.
>
> But if they are unrelated third parties they need no defense (at
Sigh.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
18 matches
Mail list logo
