Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34758 discussions

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by Brent L. Bates 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

In case anyone is interested. Frank Tanner III emailed me his PDF file and I've put it up on my Web site at the following URL: http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/Building-a-Linux-Firewall.pdf Do with it what you will. -- Brent L. Bates (UNIX Sys. Admin.) M.S. 912 Phone:(757) 865-1400, x204 NASA Langley Research Center FAX:(757) 865-8177 Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 Email: B.L.BATES(a)larc.nasa.gov http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/

2 1

Problem Rsyncing to mirrors for yum repo
by Peter Farrow 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi There, I run my own yum repo and have started seeing this error on the 4.5 repo rsync: opendir "4.5/os/i386/CentOS/RPMS/.~tmp~" (in CentOS) failed: Permission denied (13) This is to do with the upstream rysnc server, I have tried several different rsync servers and each chokes on this .~tmp~ directory. If I remove it, it copies again on next rsync and thereafter chokes as above. Any ideas? I wondered if it was mechanism applied to stop further sync's from the repo as 4.5 is now "old hat" (no pun intended :-) ) Regards Pete

1 0

Java package status?
by Les Mikesell 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Has this RH errata made it into Centos5 yet? http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0365.html If so, what does it take to fix the problem of tomcat not running under Sun Java? Do you have to remove all packages that contain jars and reinstall them? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

2 2

Re: Contact the CentOS WebMaster (was FlameFest Firewall Doc stuff)
by Jim Perrin 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

God help me I know I said let it die, but it was continued elsewhere also. I'll try to keep this forest fire in ONE location. On 6/7/07, Frank Tanner III <pctech(a)mybellybutton.com> wrote: Okay, lets try to contain this to ONE forum (mailing list) please. > See... Your whole response to my whole firewall document thing is EXACTLY why I didn't post it on your wiki. Because you are autocratic. Some community. Someone tries to GIVE to the community and the community shits on them. You had this exact same problem last year when you did this as well. Einstein defined insanity as someone performing the same actions and expecting differing results. > For the record, in less that 24 hours I had FIFTY THREE requests for the document straight from the mailing list. Which doesn't help the THOUSANDS of users who frequent the wiki, forum instruction, etc, and who don't wish to give up their email address to someone they don't know on the web. While I understand and sympathize with your previous experiences, you have to understand theirs also. > Actions like yours are EXACTLY why businesses don't want to use Linux in production and why they feel that Linux advocates are a bunch of whiny primadonna bitches. Okay now this argument is just baseless. If this were the case RH wouldn't be in business, there'd be no demand for centos, Sun wouldn't have donated hardware, we wouldn't have over 150 mirrors worldwide, and there wouldn't be a metric assload (yes this is a legitimate scale of measurement, Johnny Hughes told me so) of ISVs out there offering our software. Not everyone uses linux. Some regard linux users as whiny bitches. Sometimes they're right. But broad generalizations like yours are what got you into this mess in the first place. "I had a bad experience on 1 wiki... ALL WIKIS ARE EVIL!" ... "People on the intartubes don't want to give out their email addy to strangers and are hassling me about it... no wonder businesses don't use linux!" Seriously now, some points: 1. If you want COMPLETELY restricted access to post helpful information we can provide you a spot if it's quality work. 2. You'll only have to post 1 copy of it, instead of mailing it out every time someone asks. It'll reduce your bandwidth if you're really concerned about it. 3. LET THIS DAMN THREAD DIE ALREADY. You advertised your piece. Folks responded. It's done. In the future, if you don't want this kind of response, please don't advertise it here. If you do post it to the mailing list again, I can pretty much bet you'll get the same response.... That's what makes CentOS so great.. it's consistent and reliable! </shameless plug> -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell

3 2

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 28, Issue 6
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

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-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 3 i386 fetchmail - security update (Tru Huynh) 2. CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 3 x86_64 fetchmail - security update (Tru Huynh) 3. CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 5 i386 fetchmail Update (Karanbir Singh) 4. CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 5 x86_64 fetchmail Update (Karanbir Singh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:31:34 +0200 From: Tru Huynh <tru(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 3 i386 fetchmail - security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20070607093134.GA22721(a)sillage.bis.pasteur.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2007:0385 fetchmail security update for CentOS 3 i386: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-0385.html The following updated file has been uploaded and is currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: updates/i386/RPMS/fetchmail-6.2.0-3.el3.4.i386.rpm source: updates/SRPMS/fetchmail-6.2.0-3.el3.4.src.rpm You may update your CentOS-3 i386 installations by running the command: yum update fetchmail Tru -- Tru Huynh (CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. > > WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. > > Things start to go sideways when you begin to let others exert their own creative control over something with your name on it. I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, information, and knowledge. I'm not all for getting blamed for some crap someone added to something with my name on it. Been there, done that, don't need that drama anymore. > > Some wikis, again I speak in general, not of the CentOS wiki, also demand that you turn over any and all rights to whatever you post there. While I enjoy sharing my knowledge with the world for free, I will be damned if I will give up my rights to profit from it in the future. Even the BSD license doesn't expect this. > > This document, the firewall one, is the first in a series of documents that I plan on writing. I've worked very hard to get it to the state that it is at right now. It's what I consider a "living document" and will be changing as necessary. The second in the series is a document on building a network monitor based on open source tools. I've just begun writing it. I am hoping to have it completed in a couple of months, now that I have a format I am happy with for my documents. The third of the series will be on building a VPN concentrator based on open source tools. Part of what takes me so long to write these documents is that I don't actually enjoy writing. I enjoy doing. The firewall document started out of necessity to build multiple Linux based firewalls consistently and rapidly for myself and just morphed into something that I decided to share with the community. I figured that since there wasn't much out there that was useful others might like it. > > While it's, most definitely, not the be-all end-all of Linux based firewall information, I think it's a pretty good document that I've worked very hard to write in a presentable manner that most people could understand and even expand upon for themselves. I am all for receiving comments and suggestions for future revisions of the document, any document that I write for that matter. I'm just not all for having my documents hacked apart by every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the Internet and then all of the misinformation getting lumped onto my shoulders because I happen to be the person that wrote the original document. I've already had enough drama from the CentOS forums where I got accused of being an e-mail address harvester for a spammer. No thanks. I don't need that in my life. I'm just a computer network engineer that THOUGHT he was doing the right thing by giving back to the community. Understood, that's your right. It seems kind of silly, though, to go to the trouble of writing so much, then limit yourself with sharing to only a very small percentage of the CentOS community by broadcasting a message to e-mail you for documentation. Documentation is supposed to be readily available, that's the point of it, at least from my perspective, no matter what the license or stipulations of the content are. Although you can pick out a license for your material that would cover protecting the interests you have expressed, yet at the same time allowing others to share in your material. One of the Creative Commons license, or another, would do the trick. That said, do you not have a place to host the document then? It seems that if you've gone to that much trouble to write something, then perhaps you just need a spot somewhere to host the document? ---------------------------------------- Currently I have a domain, yes, however my bandwidth is rather limited. By cost, not by speed. I don't feel like incurring hundreds of dollars in usage fees to post this on my domain. Licensing is good and fine, except for the fact that once you post something on a wiki, in most cases, anyone that comes along can freely add to and modify the content of what you've posted. This happens on Wikipedia quite frequently. This doesn't cover the "It's your fault because you wrote the document" blame that gets lumped on you when something goes wrong from a change that someone else made. The person who's name is on the document is the one that is going to get his or her neck wrung by the pissed off person. I've had it happen in the past. I don't care to repeat it. I really don't like lawyers sending me letters because of stupidity like that. I originally chose the method that I use for disseminating it because, to be honest, I don't really see that there is enough interest in it to invest the time or money into something larger. I have, however, considered asking the admins of the IEEE Computer Society, LOPSA, or AZSAGE if I could post it on their sites when I renew my memberships. Regards, Max -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGZtJgHoeeepPau2ERAvcMAJ4voQ+EUg/StcW3vEg5ZhLMGv3NcQCgpsha podiuZE3dvwhaV4GUcI3C5Y= =n8/R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2 1

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

> Why don't you ask the Wiki gurus and put it on the CentOS Wiki? Yes, I agree whit that. The idea is always the same: beneficing the community. In this case, put the manual into the wiki would be greater for all CentOS users. ----------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. Things start to go sideways when you begin to let others exert their own creative control over something with your name on it. I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, information, and knowledge. I'm not all for getting blamed for some crap someone added to something with my name on it. Been there, done that, don't need that drama anymore. Some wikis, again I speak in general, not of the CentOS wiki, also demand that you turn over any and all rights to whatever you post there. While I enjoy sharing my knowledge with the world for free, I will be damned if I will give up my rights to profit from it in the future. Even the BSD license doesn't expect this. This document, the firewall one, is the first in a series of documents that I plan on writing. I've worked very hard to get it to the state that it is at right now. It's what I consider a "living document" and will be changing as necessary. The second in the series is a document on building a network monitor based on open source tools. I've just begun writing it. I am hoping to have it completed in a couple of months, now that I have a format I am happy with for my documents. The third of the series will be on building a VPN concentrator based on open source tools. Part of what takes me so long to write these documents is that I don't actually enjoy writing. I enjoy doing. The firewall document started out of necessity to build multiple Linux based firewalls consistently and rapidly for myself and just morphed into something that I decided to share with the community. I figured that since there wasn't much out there that was useful others might like it. While it's, most definitely, not the be-all end-all of Linux based firewall information, I think it's a pretty good document that I've worked very hard to write in a presentable manner that most people could understand and even expand upon for themselves. I am all for receiving comments and suggestions for future revisions of the document, any document that I write for that matter. I'm just not all for having my documents hacked apart by every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the Internet and then all of the misinformation getting lumped onto my shoulders because I happen to be the person that wrote the original document. I've already had enough drama from the CentOS forums where I got accused of being an e-mail address harvester for a spammer. No thanks. I don't need that in my life. I'm just a computer network engineer that THOUGHT he was doing the right thing by giving back to the community. -- Thanks, Jordi Espasa Clofent _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

7 7

Modules from a newer kernel with older kernel?
by Miguel Medalha 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Is it possible to use driver modules from Fedora 7 with CentOS 5? That is to say, modules from a kernel version 2.6.21 with a kernel version 2.6.18. I would like to try libata.ko, ata_piix.ko and some other with the kernel I am using with CentOS 5. Will it be safe? Thank you!

2 1

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

On 6/6/07, pctech(a)mybellybutton.com <pctech(a)mybellybutton.com> wrote: > > Why don't you ask the Wiki gurus and put it on the CentOS Wiki? > > Yes, I agree whit that. The idea is always the same: beneficing the > community. > In this case, put the manual into the wiki would be greater for all > CentOS users. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. [...] Please don't start this again. You can view last year's argument about this here: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-August/thread.html#67803 PCtech: You are certainly entitled to control your copyrighted material however you like, but if you look at how the rest of the open source community handles this type of information, you must be able to see that the method you are using is not typical. It's the type of thing that makes other people uncomfortable. Again, you are completely entitled to handle it however you like, but you need to expect people will consider your method unsavory. -------------------------------------------------- It is VERY typical in the open source community. Name me ONE open source project that just ANYONE can submit changes to that will go live without some sort of vetting process. You can't. Because there are none. A large percentage of the open source projects don't even accept submissions from people that aren't on the development team. I don't need to expect anything of the sort. I don't HAVE to offer this document, or any of the future ones, to people. I do it because I WANT to. For the good of the community as it were. That doesn't mean that I have to give up all of my rights to who can actually change the document that I spent the time to write. How is the way I am disseminating it ANY less "savory" than posting it on a web site for people to download? Because I choose e-mail? It allows ME to control the cost of disseminating the information. It allows ME to control the alterations to my document. I've tried disseminating things in a wiki format before. No thanks. One letter from a lawyer was quite enough. I don't know about you, but *I* don't want to have to defend myself against someone for something that I give out for free and wrote, initially, for myself. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

4 5

How to set up maxium masseage size per user basic
by Indunil Jayasooriya 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi All, I am runnig sendmail 8.13.8 with MailScanner-4.58.9-1 on CentOS 5. I want to setup a rule which filters message sizes. Below is the situation. I have 20 users. They currently have full freedom to send and recive mails. No message size checking is done. Now I want to limit message size per user basic. Let's say that 5 users can only send mails up to 7 MB and they can recieve up to 5 MB. 10 users can only send mails up to 10 MB and they can recieve up to 7 MB. and the remaining 5 users can only send mails up to 2MB and they can recieve up to 3 MB How to set a rule like this. In Mailscanner, There is a file called max.message.size.rules It is given below. I wrote a rule. But it still does not work. pls see below [root@mailgw rules]# cat max.message.size.rules To: userx(a)example.com 5M To: *(a)example.com 3M From: userx(a)example.com 7M From: *(a)example.com 2M # FromOrTo: default 0 Could you pls let me know where I have gone wrong? -- Thank you Indunil Jayasooriya

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss