looks like 1 of two things, either you arent allowing slave transfers in
named.conf, or you arent allowing slave transfers in named.conf.
-Drew
- Original Message -
From: David Barkman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:06 AM
Subject: DNS Slave
On 06/18/03 07:35 +1000, Peter Kiem wrote:
You and Drew are the ones playing semenatic games by trying to equate
the use of SMTP to be equal to a server.
Drew gave up trying to rationalize with you a long time ago, gov'na.
-Drew
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL
I have a 16 port foundry serveriron sitting under
my desk if you want to buy it.
-Drew
- Original Message -
From:
Jonathan M. Slivko
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:04
PM
Subject: Re: Load Balancer
I'm interested in getting some
Can Pop3/imap4 co-exist peacefully, like if i
wanted to run Cyrus and Popper on the same box?
-Drew
| The correct answer would've been, rebuild perl with setuid.
No. The correct answer is to stay the hell away from setuid,
and use sudo which allows fine grained control.
Red Hat provides a setuid perl in the perl-setuid package. SetUID perl
includes its own restrictions and security
Sendmail relies on system quotas, which is a very bad way of doing it.
-Drew
- Original Message -
From: Emmanuel Seyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Mailbox size
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 12:27:19PM +0200, Ivo Tijhaar wrote:
Red Hat provides a setuid perl in the perl-setuid package. SetUID perl
includes its own restrictions and security precautions.
Yeah they sure do, except it doesnt work under any circumstance, no
matter
what I do it says Can't do suid.
Works for me. As mentioned, Perl has a number of
Do you run a mail server on a DHCP address? this makes perfect sense not to
accept email from SMTP servers on dynamic addresses.
-Drew
- Original Message -
From: Leonard Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: AOL Now Bouncing
, Residential Addresses[May Be
OT]
Drew Weaver wrote:
Do you run a mail server on a DHCP address? this makes perfect sense not
to
accept email from SMTP servers on dynamic addresses.
-Drew
I do. But this notice means little to me, I don't email anyone at AOL
anyway.
Friends don't let friends
use SSH instead, telnet is the devil.
- Original Message -
From: dch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Enable Service from telnet?
Is there some way that I can enable the service command with telnet
RA?
--
redhat-list
Not every.
-Drew
- Original Message -
From: Ivo Tijhaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Mailbox size
I'm using sendmail, i already tried disk quota's but in that case procmail
fails with a temp_fail so this isn't the
and who doesnt, good sir?
;-)
- Original Message -
From: Hill, Benjamin W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: Enable Service from telnet?
Only if you telnet port 666! ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Drew Weaver [mailto
on their
service.
-Drew
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Kinz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: AOL Now Bouncing DHCP Addresses, Residential Addresses[May Be
OT]
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:20:55AM -0500, John Nichel wrote:
Drew Weaver
Addresses[May Be
OT]
- Original Message -
From: John Nichel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: AOL Now Bouncing DHCP Addresses, Residential Addresses[May Be
OT]
Drew Weaver wrote:
Since you're probably violating your ISPs
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 02:42:53PM -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:
actually, alot of ISPs including one we resell dont allow you to even
make
outgoing smtp connections unless you're going to there servers, and I
know
that MOST if not all of the Broadband providers in the US for
residential
Thats not true really, I am employed at an ISP and our Forwards and
reverses
all match, and we have a /19.
Let's not compare credentials here. It would be just a pissing match. You
may think I am wrong but if you send your message to any of my servers and
it bounced from AOL, it will
- Original Message -
From: Michael Kalus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
I wouldn't mind having my own fixed IP but they are hard to come by
these
days.
I bought mine.
They aren't exactly cheap though. For me to get a static IP from my
current ISP would cost me $300+ a MONTH.
Then
I don't think they check for the reverse lookup matching the forward.
If they do, it will break way too many legitimate servers. They may
be bouncing mail with NO reverse lookup (I do that myself)
Technically it is not legitimate unless the A matches the PTR record. No 2
ways about it.
I have created users who are in the users group on a Red Hat 8.0 server.
They have bash shell login. How do I restrict users to their home
folders? I don't want them to be able to leave their home folders.
Thanks
You may want to be careful how exactly you manage this because in the past
While they may be running MAPS or SPEWS also, what they are doing here
is different. They are blocking (as explained to me) ALL IP's that
they've defined as residential. My IP doesn't show up in MAPS or
SPEWS, but my mail is still rejected from aol.
I feverently advise against using SPEWS,
Jeff,
server being forbidden certainly appears in my TOS, but just being
smtp capable, incoming or outgoing does not a server make.
Don't confuse the use of certain protocols with running servers. They
are not the same thing.
What protocol is used to send email? SMTP!
Where does
Add to that the people on dynamic addresses who THINK they know how to set
up mailservers but don't have a clue about proper configuration and
security. This makes open relays and adds even more problems.
You'd be surprised what a MCSE does for people.
Those of us that have to process
Unfortunately I am without funds to do so. The cheapest DSL access
(offered by local telco co-op) is approx. $30 more a month then our
cable modem, otherwise I would (and be happily running websites off my
box, or not, RH9 sucks up a shit load of resources)
In these scenarios I always
Chucks servers at moongroup.com were the first ones to bite me on this
well over a year ago. I ended up routing everything through my isp
(SBC) because IIUC my mailserver at the office on a machine called
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and masqueraded behind the static ip address
of our firewall would
address unverifiable
106831 SMTP Exceeded Hard Error Limit after RCPT
333818 ACL to_relay_recipients unknown recipient -- dictionary attacks
493039 TOTAL
We're a high traffic site.
-Drew
- Original Message -
From: Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17
So we have tons of people out there who have their windows machines wide
open and are getting infected by worms, maybe we should just completely
shut
those people off the net?
Sounds ok to me.
My ISP has names associated with all the IP addresses, those names are in
return my customer ID.
Pretty much.
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John P Verel
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:31 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: AOL Now Bouncing DHCP Addresses, Residential Addresses[May
Be OT]
On 06/17/03 16:23 -0400,
Howdy, I am finally replacing a very old Redhat 6.2
box with a brand new shiny dell 2650 and redhat 9, the issue is i have some
older perl scripts, and they work great on Redhat 6.2, heck they even work great
on Redhat 9 assuming that I am running the script as root, when i chown +s this
Howdy, I am finally replacing a very old Redhat 6.2
box with a brand new shiny dell 2650 and redhat 9, the issue is i have some
older perl scripts, and they work great on Redhat 6.2, heck they even work great
on Redhat 9 assuming that I am running the script as root, when i chown +s this
The correct answer would've been, rebuild perl with setuid.
Eh?
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Cameron Simpson
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 7:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Setuid in rh9?
On 16:48 16 Jun 2003, Drew
, 2003 8:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Setuid in rh9?
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 19:08, Drew Weaver wrote:
The correct answer would've been, rebuild perl with setuid.
Eh?
I have never used setuid in perl but would not that allow anyone to run
it or worse create a script with root
Please don't top post.
On 20:08 16 Jun 2003, Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The correct answer would've been, rebuild perl with setuid.
No. The correct answer is to stay the hell away from setuid,
and use sudo which allows fine grained control.
--
Ok there mail list lieutenant, I wont
in rh9?
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 19:26, Drew Weaver wrote:
Ok, well im not trying to be difficult, this script
adds/removes/changes
users in the passwd files. Basically what happens is a cold fusion
script on our db server contacts the mail server and says hey, add
this
user, with this password
33 matches
Mail list logo
