Discuss February 2012

discuss@lists.centos.org

205 participants
193 discussions

Re: [CentOS] centos security
by Les Bell 19 Feb '12

19 Feb '12

Al <mailinglist(a)theflux.net> wrote: >> Any suggestions on what to run on a centos box to verify that the server isn't compromised or being sniffed? Thanks! << For "isn't compromised", you need a host integrity verification system like Tripwire or AIDE (which is in the base repo). Expect to have to tweak the config to cover the stuff you've got installed. You can detect sniffing by checking for promiscuous interfaces on the LAN - use proDETECT (http://sourceforge.net/projects/prodetect/) or a similar tool for this purpose. Alternatively, if you have the time and resources, you could run a full-blown network intrusion detection system like Snort (http://www.snort.org). Best, --- Les Bell [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144

3 2

Sound drop out with totem. mplayer Can't open audio device /dev/dsp
by Mark LaPierre 19 Feb '12

19 Feb '12

Hey all. This morning I found that my audio playback is randomly sprinkled with sound skips and dropouts. I went to /var/log/yum.log and found this: Feb 09 20:18:22 Updated: lame-3.99.4-2.el6.rf.i686 I'm not saying that caused the problem but it's all I could find that changed. When I ls in /dev there is no dsp entry. That would explain why mplayer Can't open audio device /dev/dsp. I don't know why there is no /dev/dsp. MPlayer 1.0rc4-4.4.6 aplay just makes a nasty hiss. aplay: version 1.0.21 I'm using pulesaudio $ rpm -qa | grep pulseaudio alsa-plugins-pulseaudio-1.0.21-3.el6.i686 pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-libs-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-utils-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-module-gconf-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-module-x11-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-gdm-hooks-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-libs-glib2-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 $ uname -a Linux mushroom.patch 2.6.32-220.4.1.el6.i686 #1 SMP Mon Jan 23 22:37:12 GMT 2012 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux CentOS 6.2 Any of these may, or may not, be related. -- _ °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registerd Linux user No #267004

5 11

Re: [CentOS] SPF Record questions
by Jonathan Vomacka 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 18.02.2012 18:33, schrieb Jonathan Vomacka: >>>>> -all will cause some MTA's to reject >>> >>> then they are badly broken >>> >>>>> ~all is better to use >>> >>> this means SPF is in testing mode and not enforced >>> some servers may use them for scoring but they will >>> never be used for blocking spoofed messages from >>> wrong sender-addresses >>> _____________________ >>> >>> however, below are SPF-compliant records working since >>> years for some hundret domains, maybe your BIND-version >>> does not support record-type "SPF" (Recent Fedora does) >>> >>> RFC says a SPF-compliant domain should use both >>> >>> and yes i prefer ip4 instead A/MX because this is enforcing >>> a lower count of dns requests at all and our internal dns >>> baclend is able to translate configured hostnames to IP >>> while generating the zone-files from the database >>> _____________________ >>> >>> @ IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" >>> @ IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" >>> >>> subdomain1 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" >>> subdomain1 IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" >>> >> >> Reindl, >> >> What about if someone uses a mobile device to send e-mail? > > what is the difference between a mobile device and a customer > at home on his workstation? there is no one! bot have to use > the SMTP for their account > >> Would ~all be better? > > it is making less trouble for people using their ISP-MTA > but this people are acting wrong and if you want to enforce > SPF they must not do this, if you want life easy for people > who acting wrong you CAN NOT enforce SPF at all > >> I also generated the following SPF >> using a wizard. Let me know if this looks correct: >> >> teamwarfare.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx a:mail.teamwarfare.com a:mail2.teamwarfare.com ip4:66.90.73.80 >> ip4:216.250.250.148 ~all" > > looks OK, without enforcing > > i made the expierience in the last years that A/MX in SPF makes > often troubles since there are more dns-requestes need on the > receiver and this is raised up with every entry of these types > in your SPF - ip4 does not need additional requests > > they often produced false positives, never seen again since changed to ip4 > >> I wouldn't need an "include:" or "ptr" statement in this right? I would told "include:" was to include OTHER >> domains that are allowed to send e-mail, but then again I see some people writing the domain again as an include. >> Also is PTR good to use or not? > > no idea > > i am using strictly ip4-entries and do not mixing domains > all users are instructed to use "mail.ourdomain.tld" and > there are not existing dns-records in customer domains as > also all MX-records of them are poining FQ to our spam-firewall > Reindl, I am sorry to ask this, but is it possible you can modify my PTR record that I submitted above with how you would enter it into BIND? I want to make sure I accurately enter this.

2 1

Bind DNS SPF Record
by Jonathan Vomacka 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

I know this is a bit off topic from CentOS itself, but are there any DNS experts that would be able to e-mail me on the side and assist with some questions I have regarding TXT/SPF records? I want to ensure my mail doesn't bounce.

2 1

Re: [CentOS] SPF Record questions
by Jonathan Vomacka 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

On 2/18/2012 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 18.02.2012 17:53, schrieb Jonathan Vomacka: >> I am inquiring about how to setup a proper SPF record. I know there are >> SPF wizards/generators available but each seem to have a different >> "opinion" of what should be included and what should not be included. >> >> Let me give you a scenario of my setup, and hopefully someone can help >> me out. >> >> My domain is: test.com >> My mailserver hostname is: mail.host.com which also has a MATCHING PTR >> record >> mail.host.com (for example) resolves to 50.1.1.1 and 50.1.1.1 resolves >> to mail.host.com >> >> This is a STANDALONE mail server which will receive and send email >> without any VIP's or load balancing. There is however one additional >> host that will send out mail from the domain but it wont be receiving >> mail, it will only be used as an SMTP (outbound only) server attached to >> a website automailer which is on a seperate webserver... It only >> generates error reports and sends them out... so technically it isn't a >> full mail server but it will be sending (outbound only) mail on behalf >> of the domain. >> >> The additional host is: mail2.test.com which resolves to 50.2.2.2 and >> there is a Matching PTR. >> >> These are the ONLY mail servers and IP addresses that will be sending >> out mail from the test.com domain. Some websites say I should use -all >> and others say -all will cause some MTA's to reject and ~all is better >> to use even if those are the only two hosts sending out mail. >> >> Would you be able to assist with a solid SPF record? > >>> -all will cause some MTA's to reject > > then they are badly broken > >>> ~all is better to use > > this means SPF is in testing mode and not enforced > some servers may use them for scoring but they will > never be used for blocking spoofed messages from > wrong sender-addresses > _____________________ > > however, below are SPF-compliant records working since > years for some hundret domains, maybe your BIND-version > does not support record-type "SPF" (Recent Fedora does) > > RFC says a SPF-compliant domain should use both > > and yes i prefer ip4 instead A/MX because this is enforcing > a lower count of dns requests at all and our internal dns > baclend is able to translate configured hostnames to IP > while generating the zone-files from the database > _____________________ > > @ IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" > @ IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" > > subdomain1 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" > subdomain1 IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" > > > Reindl, What about if someone uses a mobile device to send e-mail? Would ~all be better? I also generated the following SPF using a wizard. Let me know if this looks correct: teamwarfare.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx a:mail.teamwarfare.com a:mail2.teamwarfare.com ip4:66.90.73.80 ip4:216.250.250.148 ~all" I wouldn't need an "include:" or "ptr" statement in this right? I would told "include:" was to include OTHER domains that are allowed to send e-mail, but then again I see some people writing the domain again as an include. Also is PTR good to use or not?

1 0

SPF Record questions
by Jonathan Vomacka 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

I am inquiring about how to setup a proper SPF record. I know there are SPF wizards/generators available but each seem to have a different "opinion" of what should be included and what should not be included. Let me give you a scenario of my setup, and hopefully someone can help me out. My domain is: test.com My mailserver hostname is: mail.host.com which also has a MATCHING PTR record mail.host.com (for example) resolves to 50.1.1.1 and 50.1.1.1 resolves to mail.host.com This is a STANDALONE mail server which will receive and send email without any VIP's or load balancing. There is however one additional host that will send out mail from the domain but it wont be receiving mail, it will only be used as an SMTP (outbound only) server attached to a website automailer which is on a seperate webserver... It only generates error reports and sends them out... so technically it isn't a full mail server but it will be sending (outbound only) mail on behalf of the domain. The additional host is: mail2.test.com which resolves to 50.2.2.2 and there is a Matching PTR. These are the ONLY mail servers and IP addresses that will be sending out mail from the test.com domain. Some websites say I should use -all and others say -all will cause some MTA's to reject and ~all is better to use even if those are the only two hosts sending out mail. Would you be able to assist with a solid SPF record?

1 0

CentOS4 desktop has stopped recognizing removable media - haldaemon problem?
by Bart Schaefer 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

USB sticks and cameras used to pop right up on my desktop. Now they don't. I've checked the Gnome "Drives and Media Preferences" and nothing has changed -- I have "Mount removable media when inserted" etc. (Tried toggling it off and back on, no effect.) I've logged out and back in, even rebooted. /var/log/messages shows the devices are being recognized by udev: Jun 27 19:53:37 torch kernel: Attached scsi removable disk sde at scsi11, channel 0, id 0, lun 0 Jun 27 19:53:37 torch scsi.agent[13576]: disk at /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:0b.1/usb1/1-5/1-5:1.0/host11/target11:0:0/11:0:0:0 Jun 27 19:53:37 torch udevd[1347]: udev done! Jun 27 19:53:47 torch udevd[1347]: udev done! However, that's followed by this: Jun 27 19:54:07 torch hald[5179]: Timed out waiting for hotplug event 699. Rebasing to 699 I restarted hald (service haldaemon restart) and it picked up one of the two devices I'd plugged in, but not the other.

2 2

smartd and smartctl
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

A few weeks ago, one of my servers started complaining, via smartd, that one drive had one unreadable sector. I umounted it, and ran an fsck -c, then remounted it. Error didn't go away. Now, what's really annoying is that I've gotten back to it today, and it's reporting the problem, as it has for weeks now, every half an hour. However, when I run > smartctl -q errorsonly -H -l selftest -l error /dev/sdb it gives me *nothing*. Anyone understand why I get two different results? mark "and I am waiting for the smartctl -t long /dev/sdb to complete"

5 7

yum update stuck...
by John Doe 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

Hi, Running Transaction Updating : selinux-policy 1/6 Updating : kmod-r8168 2/6 Working. This may take some time ... An hour later, still working... S+ 10:51 0:08 | \_ /usr/bin/python /usr/bin/yum update S+ 10:53 0:00 | \_ /bin/sh /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9003 2 S+ 10:53 0:00 | \_ /bin/bash /sbin/weak-modules --add-modules S+ 10:53 0:00 | \_ /bin/bash --norc /sbin/mkinitrd --allow-missing -f /boot/initrd-2.6.18-274.17.1.el5.tmp 2.6.18-274.17.1.el5 S+ 10:53 0:00 | \_ /bin/bash --norc /sbin/mkinitrd --allow-missing -f /boot/initrd-2.6.18-274.17.1.el5.tmp 2.6.18-274.17.1.el5 D+ 10:53 0:00 | \_ lvm.static lvs --ignorelockingfailure --noheadings -o vg_name /dev/md1 I tried an strace but nothing shows up. Now, it is in: T+and strace showed me it was/is stuck on "phantom" usb devices and doing lvm stuff while I do not use lvm... Should I wait or can I just ctrl-c, reset the usb_storage module to clean up and retry yum update? Thx, JD

3 3

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 84, Issue 10
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request(a)centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner(a)centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. CESA-2012:0143 Critical CentOS 5 xulrunner Update (Johnny Hughes) 2. CESA-2012:0142 Critical CentOS 4 firefox Update (Johnny Hughes) 3. CESA-2012:0141 Critical CentOS 4 seamonkey Update (Johnny Hughes) 4. CESA-2012:0143 Critical CentOS 6 xulrunner Update (Johnny Hughes) 5. CESA-2012:0140 Critical CentOS 6 thunderbird Update (Johnny Hughes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:35:23 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2012:0143 Critical CentOS 5 xulrunner Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20120217013523.GA7158(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2012:0143 Critical Upstream details at : http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-0143.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 0dcf1983ec06f56f3009843c736af1cf93d5da0d3e02bdf6780e58401cd3cf82 xulrunner-1.9.2.26-2.el5_7.i386.rpm b8f757d7a49d40d7e54cb15bfb5015c558c7e546d3611dd3dbc0f918df1ad483 xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.26-2.el5_7.i386.rpm x86_64: 0dcf1983ec06f56f3009843c736af1cf93d5da0d3e02bdf6780e58401cd3cf82 xulrunner-1.9.2.26-2.el5_7.i386.rpm e2415c9b93d16a4bb508c35746bce17d311bd64900e97787c663da0b0a4eea8a xulrunner-1.9.2.26-2.el5_7.x86_64.rpm b8f757d7a49d40d7e54cb15bfb5015c558c7e546d3611dd3dbc0f918df1ad483 xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.26-2.el5_7.i386.rpm d8608e99851ad34e27c0a176ba96e2afa2d65e4d6531e1ea214e7c9def71af73 xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.26-2.el5_7.x86_64.rpm Source: 07ade572362e70646b8aabca07f97e764cfd369c484f54b850cba4c08e45c322 xulrunner-1.9.2.26-2.el5_7.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:39:20 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2012:0142 Critical CentOS 4 firefox Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20120217013920.GA7316(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2012:0142 Critical Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-0142.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 26c5569bbec99ea80c80dc8da3146d0de4d2ad59b6bbbe1cd11517a1196bdbf3 firefox-3.6.26-3.el4.centos.i386.rpm x86_64: badbcc0c95ece02255d5683412623395eefbf4bcec7412481508bd3cb0be67a4 firefox-3.6.26-3.el4.centos.x86_64.rpm Source: b627e370bde234945efae706acb6a765a09edda1966eb0659d764e2774a2e591 firefox-3.6.26-3.el4.centos.src.rpm -- Tru Huynh CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: tru_tru, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:42:07 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2012:0141 Critical CentOS 4 seamonkey Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20120217014207.GA7507(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2012:0141 Critical Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-0141.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 55b7e003ac20912ede26be03713073f83feee2e82fbe437cb4890bb3c827847a seamonkey-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i386.rpm 1fe20d952c91fa25b20573972c6aae2202ed2a3066a82b0ffd717c1327a52da8 seamonkey-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i686.rpm 9a83f274cb7125b765ead6e13a24c5dabbae3c31d2583851a063c04dc8181b61 seamonkey-chat-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i386.rpm 545bdfe21b31306781ba6b237114d13783342b897767a2ba639b6e3531503183 seamonkey-chat-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i686.rpm f7c90337c3b81fb24192b61e659e7e65acaf2893edac7ae7ecdd7cd9864388b8 seamonkey-devel-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i386.rpm 1b2b6704da8ca7898a9133f518525854d5a3edf17516fb98362f00f72cdf6b14 seamonkey-devel-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i686.rpm b9fda45424605ab3fd8e5b39b6b575b4810790c7ee3f475fd96d34e8ab9c8433 seamonkey-dom-inspector-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i386.rpm 74f53bb0059bf3b3f46ea62b3d4636d0e9cfb88c2427954e39c55f10097e8cb7 seamonkey-dom-inspector-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i686.rpm d0a4d8522b161e172cc23e50a1fd822519c170245df343023ea90a2f5c87a96b seamonkey-js-debugger-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i386.rpm 5a04d651e3147d12beddb358cd37edbd65116d60e4b28903ca60d489bf0501c0 seamonkey-js-debugger-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i686.rpm a0bc59b506964a2cef812b3b9fd8ea65f2d1e6455fecf17a1e23dcefb5d9a16a seamonkey-mail-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i386.rpm 0d85863fae5d2b6a44f075d6fc9902ea87ad17abd4dfb19f1a0e96b672de0754 seamonkey-mail-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.i686.rpm x86_64: 97eb14ffd1dbfcaf4276edd625c2531a1d6fb6c26c9f0d338e758c6222980fd8 seamonkey-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.x86_64.rpm 3d00520b227f57e65f896541340e491aff567cf0775fb282de9d5bf9de6b97dc seamonkey-chat-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.x86_64.rpm 0b06d088f3ae9441bb3615042eb7ddc9dfc9f9a4105bd57cc6a7d3dbeb5c244e seamonkey-devel-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.x86_64.rpm 16facb948db1d353138308af68fa3a04a4d1931be5d4fc89d7a79a9b88da43f0 seamonkey-dom-inspector-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.x86_64.rpm d40a14d2e7f9c0134f62e65f8fc1d6cc89bfa35fb8d7cd39aed8152199497ff1 seamonkey-js-debugger-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.x86_64.rpm 53330d932cb00166108061a8ac7ff1c0942cdf07106c654ed5827db8453a3d79 seamonkey-mail-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.x86_64.rpm Source: 370ebb88f988f01b74c305f0742ac356a1a80fabf3b62d031dddf0cdbd3d9249 seamonkey-1.0.9-79.el4.centos.src.rpm -- Tru Huynh CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: tru_tru, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:51:39 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2012:0143 Critical CentOS 6 xulrunner Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20120217025139.GA10524(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2012:0143 Critical Upstream details at : http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-0143.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 8749ac0dda4b4a136606ce579bdbf0f843e1a032a591b151bdec5576a3559c3c xulrunner-1.9.2.26-2.el6.centos.i686.rpm b13f01848705096dea6cb31b204c1e53ce54cd7bf1faec27caed8da72eabc6df xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.26-2.el6.centos.i686.rpm x86_64: 8749ac0dda4b4a136606ce579bdbf0f843e1a032a591b151bdec5576a3559c3c xulrunner-1.9.2.26-2.el6.centos.i686.rpm 31ae5c049dd956b8419f2867e9f5c0cc281b5ba16d76041c4504127a4ae67aa2 xulrunner-1.9.2.26-2.el6.centos.x86_64.rpm b13f01848705096dea6cb31b204c1e53ce54cd7bf1faec27caed8da72eabc6df xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.26-2.el6.centos.i686.rpm 77b5ef057cc9fb5da3c8205bb00b143a940d306dd3a798baf1537caacb25c0fa xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.26-2.el6.centos.x86_64.rpm Source: bdd545c3b0710477a1e7be7e56a440aec5d05d6f1b732229e5f8b8856ad2a9d7 xulrunner-1.9.2.26-2.el6.centos.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:53:21 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2012:0140 Critical CentOS 6 thunderbird Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20120217025321.GA10608(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2012:0140 Critical Upstream details at : http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-0140.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: ae26735ee97688cd66069a7d930f68ef631e1e02892991bcf136712e0e183b5c thunderbird-3.1.18-2.el6.centos.i686.rpm x86_64: 943859983ac51b7d2e1090669d532782f6f85c0fe654afb8a5c9101f799c6ebc thunderbird-3.1.18-2.el6.centos.x86_64.rpm Source: 474c62578d4e2ca502e99f8295da0b22e9be5f73ecfa048289cad84ba39b696a thunderbird-3.1.18-2.el6.centos.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 84, Issue 10 ***********************************************

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
20
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss February 2012