Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

8 participants
34737 discussions

CentOS-3 x86_64 errata : Updated Squirrelmail package fixes security issues
by Tru Huynh 11 Feb '05

11 Feb '05

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-135.html refers Updated files are :- updates/x86_64/RPMS/squirrelmail-1.4.3a-9.EL3.centos.1.noarch.rpm updates/x86_64/SRPMS/squirrelmail-1.4.3a-9.EL3.centos.1.src.rpm To update run 'yum update squirrelmail' Tru -- Tru Huynh (CentOS-3 x86_64 helper) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B

1 0

CentOS-3 i386 errata: Updated mod_python package fixes security issue (resent)
by Lance Davis 11 Feb '05

11 Feb '05

Resent due to signing problem. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-104.html refers Updated files are :- updates/i386/RPMS/mod_python-3.0.3-5.ent.i386.rpm updates/i386/SRPMS/mod_python-3.0.3-5.ent.src.rpm To update run 'yum update mod_python' Lance

1 0

CentOS-3 i386 errata : Updated Squirrelmail package fixes security issues
by Lance Davis 11 Feb '05

11 Feb '05

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-135.html refers Updated files are :- updates/i386/RPMS/squirrelmail-1.4.3a-9.EL3.centos.1.noarch.rpm updates/i386/SRPMS/squirrelmail-1.4.3a-9.EL3.centos.1.src.rpm To update run 'yum update squirrelmail' Lance

1 0

[Fwd: CentOS-3 i386 errata: Updated mod_python package fixes security issue]
by Lance Davis 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

arrgh

2 3

CentOS-3 i386 errata: Updated mod_python package fixes security issue
by Lance Davis 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-104.html refers Updated files are :- updates/i386/RPMS/mod_python-3.0.3-5.ent.i386.rpm updates/i386/SRPMS/mod_python-3.0.3-5.ent.src.rpm To update run 'yum update mod_python' Lance

1 0

help with xargs and mv
by James B. Byrne 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

I am trying to move a group of sendmail queue files into a special area and am developing s script to assist. The manual steps are: # Identify which messages to move mailq -qR<domain> > file1 # Select only lines with message ID strings grep '^[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]\{13\}' file1 > file2 # extract only the messages ID cut -b -14 file2 > file3 # prepend '*' to message IDs sed "s/^/\*/" file3 > file4 All of this works the way that I expect. What I now want to do is to mv all of the related files listed in file4 in the form "*messageid" to another directory. Using xargs I expected (naively) that the following construction would work: cat file4 | xargs mv /var/spool/mqueue/'{}' \ /var/spool/mqueue/offline (note that in the original this is all one line.) However, when I do this I get the error: mv: when moving multiple files, last argument must be a directory Try `mv --help' for more information. There is obviously something about xargs that I do not understand. In my imagination I see this xargs construction expanding to this: mv /var/spool/mqueue/*messageid1 /var/spool/mqueue/offline mv /var/spool/mqueue/*messageid2 /var/spool/mqueue/offline . . . mv /var/spool/mqueue/*messageidn /var/spool/mqueue/offline so that the qf and df files for each message are moved into the subdirectory offline. But this is obviously incorrect. Can anyone here point out to me what my misunderstanding is and how to get this to work? If this is not the forum for this kind of question then can someone with more experience point me to a mailing list that would be more suitable? Regards, JIm -- *** e-mail is not a secure channel *** mailto:byrnejb.<token>@harte-lyne.ca James B. Byrne Harte & Lyne Limited vox: +1 905 561 1241 9 Brockley Drive fax: +1 905 561 0757 Hamilton, Ontario <token> = hal Canada L8E 3C3

4 12

Apache 2.0.53 and Centos
by Michael Rock 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

Can someone tell me what configure options are needed to compile the latest Apache 2.0.53 to behave exactly like the latest apache 2.0.46 included with Centos 3.4? thx __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

4 10

CentOS-3 x86_64 errata: Updated mailman packages fix security vulnerability
by Tru Huynh 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-136.html refers updated files are :- updates/x86_64/RPMS/mailman-2.1.5-24.rhel3.x86_64.rpm updates/x86_64/SRPMS/mailman-2.1.5-24.rhel3.src.rpm To update CentOS 3 to this new version run 'yum update mailman' CentOS 3.3 shipped with an earlier version of mailman - mailman-2.0.13-5 - in the extras repo. Details of the mailman upgrade procedure may be found at http://www.centos.org/mailman The 3.3 x86_64 updates repository already contained a mailman-2.1.5-23, so the upgrade was also provided for 3.3 and 3.4. Consider upgrading to CentOS 3.4 (http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=34) Tru -- Tru Huynh (CentOS-3 x86_64 helper) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B

1 0

CentOS-3 i386 errata: Updated mailman packages fix security vulnerability
by Lance Davis 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-136.html refers updated files are :- updates/i386/RPMS/mailman-2.1.5-24.rhel3.i386.rpm updates/i386/SRPMS/mailman-2.1.5-24.rhel3.src.rpm To update CentOS 3.4 to this new version run 'yum update mailman' CentOS 3.3 shipped with an earlier version of mailman - mailman-2.0.13-5 - in the extras repo. This version has not been supported since 3.4 was released, ( http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=34) however this version may be vulnerable to the exploit so it is recommended that all users upgrade. Details of the upgrade procedure may be found at http://www.centos.org/mailman Lance

2 1

silly cross posts
by Rick Graves 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

Russ, > Sorry for the cross post, but this is an important > one potentially affecting all recipients. Why be sorry? Did you break a rule? Where is the rule? It seems that there is a rule, but the rule gives if the matter is important enough. But you have to say "Sorry"? It seems that when a matter comes up that is important enough to inform everyone, one MUST cross post -- otherwise, you guarantee that lots of people will not get the message. Having to say "Sorry" to get a message out to everyone who needs to get the message seems silly to me. I would think that if the message is important enough and must get to everyone, one should be able to cross post without having to say "Sorry" -- saying "Sorry" is "silly". Rick

1 0

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