Re: regex question....

2010-12-04 Thread xSAPPYx
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 17:56,  per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
 Joshua Gimer jgi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
  I have tried :1,$/s/[0-9]][0-9][0-9]/foo/g
 Why not just %s/[0-9]*/foo/g

 Too broad -- it will match the null string.  (* means zero or more
 instances of whatever preceded it.)

 Best RE I know for integers is

  [1-9][0-9]*

 (or replace the 1 with a 0 if the strings in question might have
 leading zeros).
 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Also, the + operator means '1 or more' but needs escaped:  %s/[0-9]\+/foo/g
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: ssh authentication error

2010-11-12 Thread xSAPPYx
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:06, Jerrin slackma...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

  On a mac system i generated the key using ssh-keygen -t dsa and copied
 .ssh/id_dsa.pub to /home/user/.ssh/authorized_keys on a Freebsd server, but
 it prompts for the password

Check perms on /home/user/.ssh/authorized_keys
chmod 640 or 600, not 644

If that doesn't work, try to ssh with a -v or -vv, that might give you
more of a clue
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: mounting UFS CD-ROMs

2010-08-04 Thread xSAPPYx
You could try the conv=swab option to dd

dd if=/dev/acd0 of=5853-5864.iso conv=swab

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 18:04, Noah Pratt npr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Michael Powell nightre...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Noah Pratt wrote:

 Hi,

 I have a whole bunch of UFS CD-ROMs, but I'm unable to mount them on
 my FreeBSD 8 system.
 I thought it would be possible. From the FAQ:
 http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/disks.html

     UFS CD-ROMs can be mounted directly on FreeBSD. Mounting disk
 partitions from Digital UNIX and other systems that support UFS may be
 more complex, depending on the details of the disk partitioning for
 the operating system in question.


 I tried the direct route:

 6930p# file -s /dev/acd0t01
 /dev/acd0: Unix Fast File system [v1] (big-endian), last mounted on
                                         ^^
 [snip]

 6930p# uname -a
 FreeBSD 6930p.domain.com 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #1: Mon May 17
 01:26:14 PDT 2010
 r...@6930p.domain.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64


 Am I missing something that ought to be obvious? [probable]
 Is it no longer possible to mount UFS filesystems? [unlikely ;-) ]
 Is there something specific about *this* UFS filesystem that prevents
 it from working?


 I suspect maybe the disk was written using Solaris on SPARC, which is big-
 endian. Most PC architectures are little-endian.

 -Mike



 Yes, the CDs were created in Solaris on SPARC. (I think it was a Sparc 10...)
 And yes, my FreeBSD system is an Intel Core2Duo.

 In Linux, copying the disc and mounting the disc image via loopback
 worked great:
   ubuntu# cat /dev/cdrom  cd-image
   ubuntu# mount -t ufs -o ro,loop cd-image /mnt

 It looks like NetBSD has a kernel build option FFS_EI, to enable
 fsck_ffs -B to convert the byte order.
 (I don't have a NetBSD system to test though.)

 I even found a Windows program called R-Studio ( http://www.r-tt.com/
 ) that was able to recover data from these discs.

 Can the filesystem's endianness be converted in FreeBSD?



 Thanks a lot!

 -Noah
 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: FreeBSD's UFS vs Ext4

2010-02-11 Thread xSAPPYx
Using a phoronix link as an example, ext4 still has some pretty bad
data loss bugs:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=Nzk0OA

imo: data security of ufs  speed of ext4
ymmv
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: I am not understanding something about pf

2009-12-11 Thread xSAPPYx
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Doug Hardie bc...@lafn.org wrote:

 I am running 7.2-Stable with pf.  I have the following pf.conf:

 no rdr inet proto tcp from spamd-white-local to any port smtp
 no rdr inet proto tcp from spamd-white to any port smtp
 rdr pass inet proto tcp from any to any port smtp - 127.0.0.1 port spamd

 This is the basic spamd configuration with an extra table
 spamd-white-local which lists hosts to go directly to the mail server.
  Everything works properly.  Hosts not in either spamd table go to spamd and
 those in either spamd table go directly to the mail server.  However, the pf
 statistics don't seem to make sense to me.  I always see the following:

 no rdr inet proto tcp from spamd-white-local to any port = smtp
  [ Evaluations: 1193433   Packets: 0 Bytes: 0   States: 0
   ]
  [ Inserted: uid 0 pid 73310 ]
 no rdr inet proto tcp from spamd-white to any port = smtp
  [ Evaluations: 110124Packets: 0 Bytes: 0   States: 0
   ]
  [ Inserted: uid 0 pid 73310 ]
 rdr pass inet proto tcp from any to any port = smtp - 127.0.0.1 port 8025
  [ Evaluations: 110124Packets: 63Bytes: 3516States: 1
   ]
  [ Inserted: uid 0 pid 73310 ]

 Where the first two entries never show any Packets and the third shows
 everything.  Does no rdr work differently than rdr with the statistics?
  I understood from the Book of PF that the rules were evaluated such that
 the last matching rule is used.  Hence I think that with the above conf file
 the spamd-white-local table would never get used as the connection will
 match one of the 2 following rules.

 So I ran another test by putting the first rule last:

 no rdr inet proto tcp from spamd-white to any port smtp
 rdr pass inet proto tcp from any to any port smtp - 127.0.0.1 port spamd
 no rdr inet proto tcp from spamd-white-local to any port smtp

 Now entries in spamd-white-local are ignored and, the statistics are
 quite different:

 no rdr inet proto tcp from spamd-white to any port = smtp
  [ Evaluations: 79Packets: 0 Bytes: 0   States: 0
   ]
  [ Inserted: uid 0 pid 86983 ]
 rdr pass inet proto tcp from any to any port = smtp - 127.0.0.1 port 8025
  [ Evaluations: 52Packets: 25Bytes: 1395States: 1
   ]
  [ Inserted: uid 0 pid 86983 ]
 no rdr inet proto tcp from spamd-white-local to any port = smtp
  [ Evaluations: 0 Packets: 0 Bytes: 0   States: 0
   ]
  [ Inserted: uid 0 pid 86983 ]


 Now the last rule says its never evaluated.  This indicates that its the
 first rule that matches that is used rather than the last.  However, why are
 there never any packets counted in the no rdr rules?

 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
 freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org



Do you have a pass in proto tcp to port smpt or some such rule that is
capturing the rest of the packets/accounting stats?

I believe the pass in the second test  (rdr pass inet proto tcp from any
to any port = smtp - 127.0.0.1 port 8025) is short circuiting your assumed
last match wins.

The full pf.conf would be helpful
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: DNS Question

2009-10-23 Thread xSAPPYx
Also, MX needs to resolve to an A, not a CNAME.. If you are using mail
on all these domains, use A records

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Sean Cavanaugh
millenia2...@hotmail.com wrote:

 how is this illegal?

 CNAME rule:

 a node with a CNAME cannot contain any other records.

 for the node domain.tld:

 domain.tld. soa ...
 domain.tld. ns ...
 domain.tld. cname otherdomain.tld.

 this node has a CNAME and other data, so it's illegal, no matter what you 
 want to do, or what makes sense to you, or what is convenient for you.







 ah yes, forgot about that. you are correct on that line.



 -Sean
                                          
 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: problem on pf @ freebsd 7.0

2008-05-14 Thread xSAPPYx
Take a look in /etc/defaults/rc.conf  The bits for PF are already
there. All you should need is to set   pf_enable=YES
A quick guess would be that that /etc/defaults/rc.conf is loaded after
/etc/rc.conf, and pf_enable is reset to NO, but that is just a guess.

Here is my pf section from /etc/defaults/rc.conf  that brings pf up on boot:

snip
pf_enable=YES # Set to YES to enable packet filter (pf)
pf_rules=/etc/pf.conf # rules definition file for pf
pf_program=/sbin/pfctl# where the pfctl program lives
pf_flags= # additional flags for pfctl
pflog_enable=YES  # Set to YES to enable packet filter logging
pflog_logfile=/var/log/pflog  # where pflogd should store the logfile
pflog_program=/sbin/pflogd# where the pflogd program lives
pflog_flags=  # additional flags for pflogd
snip

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:24 AM, RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:24:52 +0800
 CyberSans AirBort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 and guess what? pf is not loading when startup. i have to manually
 restarted the pf using /etc/rc.d/pf restart

 What exactly do you mean by not loading? Do you mean not working?

 Are there any pf related error messages in /var/log/messages.

 In some case pf does need a /etc/rc.d/pf resync (or restart) done
 at a later stage. e.g if  pf.conf uses hostnames that can't be resolved
 at that stage of the boot.

 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: coretemp 70C = CPU too hot?

2008-05-09 Thread xSAPPYx
Also something to keep in mind, most (all?) new procs have thermal
cuttoffs that will kill themselves before any damage happens. If you
box hasn't shut down in weird ways or underclocked itself, you are
probably good to go. It's something to keep your eye on, but I
wouldn't worry too much about it if you aren't experiencing any
problems.


On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Christian Zachariasen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Wojciech Puchar 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 As with so many other things in the computer world, it depends. With no
 case
 fans, it's weird that the computer gets colder if it has something above
 and


 no it's not. the machines above and below has proper cooling, and transfers
 this machine heat by conduction - rack cases are mostly metal and conduct
 heat well.


 I've very little experience with computers in racks, but if the machines are
 actually touching, then yes, this could be the case.

 The 65 C temperature a previous poster was talking about is not the maximum
 operating temperature for the actual processor, it's the maximum temperature
 in the case while the computer is operating. As far as I know CPU
 temperatures are measured on the actual processor die, and the case
 temperature will normally be *much* lower.

 Christian Zachariasen
 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]