On Tuesday 02 July 2002 21:22, Robert Kearey wrote: >Jon LaBadie wrote: >> Sounds like you took it personally. > >Possibly - I replied pre-morning coffee. Sorry if my tone was a > bit aggressive. > >> Gene was commenting from a point having viewed many bad >> packages. Perhaps yours is wonderous. > >It cures all know diseases! It's a floor wax, it's a desert whip! > No, honestly!
ROTFLMAO! Shades of Billy May, chuckle. :-) >> That has not been the general experience >> of long time contributers to this list. > >It may then be time to re-evaluate that perception. > >It's just too simplistic to blow off a packaged amanda, especially > when there are possible support issues involved. It's possible > that someone following Gene's advice may find that their Red Hat > Network setup is compromised, for example. And not everybody > *has* the luxury of being able to compile from source. Humm, interesting, citing security concerns from one of my recommendations? Can you supply a situation where that could apply? Or are you more concerned with the fact that its configuation is published at all? Maybe, if they leave their system wide open. But if you aren't using portsentry 1.1 to auto-write rules for iptables, and tcp_wrappers, well... I won't say its bulletproof, but in 3 years of sitting on the network with an outside the firewall address, my old office box hasn't been compromised yet. The /etc/hosts.deny file looks a bit like an LA phone book though. Its around 25k the last time I checked. :-) Heck, here at home on a dialup, hosts.deny is up to 12k since I fired up "gene" in May '98. >http://people.redhat.com/rkearey/amanda.spec is the current spec > file, feel free to have a look. >Note: Not speaking for Red Hat here, nor am I the amanda package >maintainer - just a satisfied user thereof. And thats all I am too really, a satisfied user. -- Cheers, Gene AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M 99.04% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
