On Thursday 07 April 2005 06:24 am, Neil Joseph Schelly wrote:
What type of database are you using? Did you give that user permissions to
use that database? If using MySQL, let me suggest installing phpmysql for
administering it. It will make this stuff a lot easier if you're not too
Where
On Apr 7, 2005 3:05 PM, Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
question: should I copy my public/private key-pair from the desktop to
matching directories on the laptops? I'm not inclined to, because of
the greater risk of the laptops being stolen while I'm on the road.
Physical possession of the
Steven W. Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just read your message and all the other replys that sprang forth.
I am running a sendmail server off my cablemodem as well. Anytime I get a
message delivery failure because of reason of coming from a dynamic
address pool, I just add them to my
But they have no need to know:
- to whom I send e-mail
- when I send e-mail
- from where I send e-mail
Since you are sending your email through their network, couldn't they
find out this information anyway? How does not using their mail server
prevent them from seeing the info you listed
On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Cole Tuininga wrote:
I'm just looking for a little bit of clarification here. Are the
laptops being used as clients to connect to remote systems?
Hi, Cole:
To clarify: when I am logged in to my machine at home, I use ssh-agent
to load my keypairs into memory so I
Travis Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But they have no need to know:
- to whom I send e-mail
- when I send e-mail
- from where I send e-mail
Since you are sending your email through their network, couldn't they
find out this information anyway? How does not using their mail server
prevent
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:25:58AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
Since you are sending your email through their network, couldn't they
find out this information anyway? How does not using their mail server
prevent them from seeing the info you listed there?
Not necessarily. Paul and I both run
Travis Roy wrote:
Where did he say that he did not have business class? I had business
class DSL and my IP range was still considered within a dynamic pool.
One of my clients has a T1, with a bunch of static IPs. They
sublet their connection to building tenants. They've had it for
some years.
Is there a command line function to collapse a group of symbolic
links, replacing them with the files they reference?
I tried: (cd /dir1 ; tar cf - .) | (cd /dir2 ; tar xf -)
But, it copied the files as links. It is not too hard to write a
script to do it, but all too often I
When you say this:
tar --help
...it tells you about --dereference
(and a lot of other stuff, too)
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:48:50AM -0400, Jim Kuzdrall wrote:
Is there a command line function to collapse a group of symbolic
links, replacing them with the files they reference?
I tried: (cd /dir1 ; tar cf - .) | (cd /dir2 ; tar xf -)
You need the -h option to tar. See the man
Jim Kuzdrall writes:
Is there a command line function to collapse a group of symbolic
links, replacing them with the files they reference?
Older editions of the _Programming Perl_ book come with the program
sl (for show links). Either this does what you want or else it
should be easy to
Sorry, I should have experimented more. cp does what I want done.
On Friday 08 April 2005 10:48 am, you wrote:
Is there a command line function to collapse a group of symbolic
links, replacing them with the files they reference?
I tried: (cd /dir1 ; tar cf - .) | (cd /dir2 ; tar xf
On Friday, Apr 8th 2005 at 10:48 -0400, quoth Jim Kuzdrall:
=Is there a command line function to collapse a group of symbolic
=links, replacing them with the files they reference?
=
=I tried: (cd /dir1 ; tar cf - .) | (cd /dir2 ; tar xf -)
=
=But, it copied the files as links. It is
On Apr 7, 2005, at 22:53, Derek Martin wrote:
Reject if:
1) the message is not signed with the domain's published key
2) the signature matches, but the domain is a known spammer
3) there is no published key
Otherwise accept.
How does this work in a world with $5 domains? If I were a spammer
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:53:46PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
The point is that you can block known spammers based on their domain,
without needlessly penalizing the innocent.
Reject if:
1) the message is not signed with the domain's published key
2) the signature matches, but the domain is a
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:18:23PM -0400, Bob Bell wrote:
Isn't this scheme somewhat similar to SPF or DomainKeys? At least to
the degree that it attempts to validate the domain of the sender?
Yes. It's been a while since I looked at either, so I'm not sure
about specific similarities and
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:22:49PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
only way to put a stop to the spam problem is to make it unprofitable
for the so-called advertiser, by fining offenders a substantial amt.
per individual spam message, and jail time for people who facilitate
spam.
Note that what
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:22:49PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
only way to put a stop to the spam problem is to make it unprofitable
for the so-called advertiser, by fining offenders a substantial amt.
per individual spam message, and jail time for
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:10:17PM -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Note that what I meant to say here was that the OFFENDER should be
considered the COMPANY whose PRODUCTS are being advertised.
No, the offender is the group or individual who causes the spam to be
sent, not necessarily the
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:18:07PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:10:17PM -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Note that what I meant to say here was that the OFFENDER should be
considered the COMPANY whose PRODUCTS are being advertised.
No, the offender is the group or
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, right. THAT's what I meant. ;-) The person who is selling
whatever's being sold in the spam... including figurative uses of the
word sell in the case that nothing is directly being sold for
money.
If I decide to send out bulk email urging people
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:47:47PM -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
If I decide to send out bulk email urging people to buy Coca-Cola, who
is at fault, me or the executives at Coke? Let's say that I have
nothing whatsoever to do with Coke.
OK I get it... I was being dense bot I got it now. ;-)
From: Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Bob Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:22:49 -0400
Ultimately, as I've said many times before, there is no method of
fighting spam which will be truly effective. The best you can do is
let the client deal with it by running
Cc: Steven W. Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
From: Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:49:19 -0400
Sure, because I'm on their wire, they can obviously find out some
level of information about me. But by me relaying through their
25 matches
Mail list logo
