## Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:56:29PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
following in /etc/exim/system_filter.txt:
This
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:26:53AM +0400, ? ? wrote:
Hello Noah,
Does the same approach could be use with sendmail ? Any examples?
NLM On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:56:29PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
NLM After
Hi,
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix homepage, nor in
the postfix-doc package.
I'd be especially interested in chrooting postfix processes.
Regs,
Sven
--
Sven Riedel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the same approach could be use with sendmail ? Any examples?
I guess, you could integrate this in http://www.spamassassin.org.
SpamAssassin already scans the email body for signs of spam, so it
shouldn't be too hard, to add another regex. Although, I never
I've been running into a problem with NIS on Debian -- everything looks like it should
be working, but logins fail with pam saying user unknown.
Here's an example -- I can change the password, so clearly NIS is working, yet at the
end the login fails:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# yppasswd student
Hi,
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix homepage, nor in
the postfix-doc package.
I'd be especially interested in chrooting postfix processes.
look at /etc/postfix/sample-master.cf or in postfix doc's or
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 at 10:55:55 +0200, Sven Riedel wrote:
Hi,
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix homepage, nor in
the postfix-doc package.
I'd be especially interested in chrooting postfix processes.
In
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=204711
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 23:42, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
Thanks, that looks interesting! I'm using the Debian Stable Exim
packages too, so I guess this is something I can just cut'n'paste in!
:-)
And it seems I really need
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:27:26PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
2) Any unsigned sources in ftp.gnu.org could have been trojaned during
the March-July period, and most of GNU packages have their corresponding
packages in the Debian archive.
The current evidence suggests that
Quoting Tomasz Papszun [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 at 10:55:55 +0200, Sven Riedel wrote:
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix homepage, nor in
the postfix-doc package.
I'd be especially
I guess you just have to add +:: in /etc/passwd; + in
/etc/shadow and it will be okay.
Your sincerely,
Huegesh Marimuthu
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Peter Nome wrote:
I've been running into a problem with NIS on Debian -- everything looks like it
should be working, but logins fail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 10:52, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 23:42, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
Thanks, that looks interesting! I'm using the Debian Stable
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 at 12:59:39 +0200, Lupe Christoph wrote:
Quoting Tomasz Papszun [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 at 10:55:55 +0200, Sven Riedel wrote:
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix
* Huegesh Marimuthu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030820 13:35]:
I guess you just have to add +:: in /etc/passwd; + in
/etc/shadow and it will be okay.
Wrong. This was even deprecated when I started using Linux in 1996.
No, nis is just broken on sid. See e.g. http://bugs.debian.org/204682
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:44:08AM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
following in /etc/exim/system_filter.txt:
This approach yields a high false
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 06:52 am, Yannick Van Osselaer wrote:
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 10:52, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 23:42, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
This filter will reject at SMTP-time, right? One question there? Who
gets the bounce? I'm getting a whole lot
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:00:40PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 09:00:51PM -0400, valerian wrote:
It actually does a very good job of stopping any kind of stack-smashing
attack dead in its tracks (both the stack and heap are marked as
non-executable). That takes
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 06:26 am, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
Sure, I know it.
==
# service type private unpriv chroot wakeup maxproc command + args
# (yes) (yes) (yes) (never) (50)
#
## Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:44:08AM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
following in
Am Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:40:13AM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans sagte:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:44:08AM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
following in
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 05:23:30PM +0200, Adam ENDRODI wrote:
No, it really doesn't. It might stop some common implementations of
exploits, but that's about it. There are many papers available which
describe the shortcomings of this kind of prevention.
Could you provide some pointers on
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 17:05, Jay Kline wrote:
The mail server that send the bounce. This is called a double
bounce. Correct me if this is wrong ...
Yes, it goes back to the server doing the sending. Its a double
bounce when the bounce message itself bounces. I dont know how this
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
Dear all,
I guess I'm not really looking for a security solution, but I guess
you folks are the most likely to know, so I try here...
In the last couple of hours, I've got about 25 100KB of the recent
Sobig.f M$ virus, along with about the same number of bogus there
Quoting Jamie Heilman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=204711
Thanks for the help on the NIS problem -- it's a known bug in sid (glibc/libc6 most
likely).
Sid sometimes gets mistaken for the boy next door who destroys toys, quite unfairly.
He's the guy in
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: Wicked screensaver
I am TDY until 25 AUG. If you require assistance please contact the following:
CDR DAN Shaka Hinson is the acting CO, he can be reached at DSN 949-1169/COMM 559-998-1169 or by e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or...MS. Pam Knotts: x1159
[EMAIL
Hello Noah,
Does the same approach could be use with sendmail ? Any examples?
NLM On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:56:29PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
NLM After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
NLM
## Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:56:29PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
following in /etc/exim/system_filter.txt:
This
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:26:53AM +0400, ? ? wrote:
Hello Noah,
Does the same approach could be use with sendmail ? Any examples?
NLM On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:56:29PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
NLM After
Hi,
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix homepage, nor in
the postfix-doc package.
I'd be especially interested in chrooting postfix processes.
Regs,
Sven
--
Sven Riedel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Игорь Ляпин [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the same approach could be use with sendmail ? Any examples?
I guess, you could integrate this in http://www.spamassassin.org.
SpamAssassin already scans the email body for signs of spam, so it
shouldn't be too hard, to add another regex.
I've been running into a problem with NIS on Debian -- everything looks like it
should be working, but logins fail with pam saying user unknown.
Here's an example -- I can change the password, so clearly NIS is working, yet
at the end the login fails:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# yppasswd student
Hi,
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix homepage, nor in
the postfix-doc package.
I'd be especially interested in chrooting postfix processes.
look at /etc/postfix/sample-master.cf or in postfix doc's or
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 at 10:55:55 +0200, Sven Riedel wrote:
Hi,
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix homepage, nor in
the postfix-doc package.
I'd be especially interested in chrooting postfix processes.
In
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=204711
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 23:42, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
Thanks, that looks interesting! I'm using the Debian Stable Exim
packages too, so I guess this is something I can just cut'n'paste in!
:-)
And it seems I really need
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:27:26PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
2) Any unsigned sources in ftp.gnu.org could have been trojaned during
the March-July period, and most of GNU packages have their
corresponding
packages in the Debian archive.
The current evidence
Quoting Tomasz Papszun [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 at 10:55:55 +0200, Sven Riedel wrote:
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix homepage, nor in
the postfix-doc package.
I'd be especially
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 10:52, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 23:42, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
Thanks, that looks interesting! I'm using the Debian Stable
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 at 12:59:39 +0200, Lupe Christoph wrote:
Quoting Tomasz Papszun [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 at 10:55:55 +0200, Sven Riedel wrote:
is there any documentation on securing a postfix server readily
available? I didn't find anything much at the postfix
* Huegesh Marimuthu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030820 13:35]:
I guess you just have to add +:: in /etc/passwd; + in
/etc/shadow and it will be okay.
Wrong. This was even deprecated when I started using Linux in 1996.
No, nis is just broken on sid. See e.g. http://bugs.debian.org/204682
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:44:08AM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
following in /etc/exim/system_filter.txt:
This approach yields a high false
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 06:52 am, Yannick Van Osselaer wrote:
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 10:52, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 23:42, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
This filter will reject at SMTP-time, right? One question there? Who
gets the bounce? I'm getting a whole lot
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 06:26 am, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
Sure, I know it.
==
# service type private unpriv chroot wakeup maxproc command + args
# (yes) (yes) (yes) (never) (50)
#
## Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:44:08AM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
following in
Am Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:40:13AM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans sagte:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:44:08AM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
So, I'm wondering, does anybody know about any such approach?
After getting sick of all the virus crap in my inbox I installed the
following in
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 05:23:30PM +0200, Adam ENDRODI wrote:
No, it really doesn't. It might stop some common implementations of
exploits, but that's about it. There are many papers available which
describe the shortcomings of this kind of prevention.
Could you provide some pointers on
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 17:05, Jay Kline wrote:
The mail server that send the bounce. This is called a double
bounce. Correct me if this is wrong ...
Yes, it goes back to the server doing the sending. Its a double
bounce when the bounce message itself bounces. I dont know how this
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
Dear all,
I guess I'm not really looking for a security solution, but I guess
you folks are the most likely to know, so I try here...
In the last couple of hours, I've got about 25 100KB of the recent
Sobig.f M$ virus, along with about the same number of bogus there
Quoting Jamie Heilman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=204711
Thanks for the help on the NIS problem -- it's a known bug in sid (glibc/libc6
most likely).
Sid sometimes gets mistaken for the boy next door who destroys toys, quite
unfairly.
He's the guy in
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: Wicked screensaver
I am TDY until 25 AUG. If you require assistance please contact the following:
CDR DAN Shaka Hinson is the acting CO, he can be reached at DSN 949-1169/COMM 559-998-1169 or by e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or...MS. Pam Knotts: x1159
[EMAIL
51 matches
Mail list logo
