search for: occassionaly

........ Running Samba 2.2.7 on Red Hat 7.3. All clients are running either Windows 2000 or Win XP. We're getting cases of workstations being able to see files via Win Explorer, update data in various utilities such as the Sybiz "eyeball" while some functions such as reindexing will occassionaly give a file access error. They're also getting some "unusual" accounting errors, but I'm inclined to think that this is more of an application problem. Because they're only in a small workgroup, basically every user has full read/write access to all the files in the share...

...TORE .. +FLAGS (\Seen)" command even though this is implicit the "FETCH .. BODY[..]" command (and it gets informed of the flag change in the response). I've tried and tried to find a "formula" for re-creating the problem "on demand", but it only goes wrong occassionaly. My guess is it's some sort of timing thing with mbox sync (BTW we have "mbox_dirty_syncs = yes" and "mbox_very_dirty_syncs = no"). Has anybody else seen this? I'm hoping to roll out this version to our wider group of testers soon and would like to get this issue so...

...however, winbind without caching has been tested (-n switch at /etc/sysconfig/samba) and a 0 seconds cache (to force resync every query) has also been tested. nscd has been tested also, with permanent = no and enable-cache = no (and yes, everything has been tested <sob>), with same results. Occassionaly, and only for a certain ammount of time, wbinfo returns full gecos field info, but most of the time it does not return gecos field. I've been searching for similar problems over the internet (which leaded to some nscd clues and some wb cache settings) but none worked. There is no error trace...

...the quotes. I am stumped by the R results I get too often, and I'm not a novice. That said, good design is hard. I spend a lot of time on that aspect in the survival package and there are still bits where the 'right' way is only clear after several years experience. I do occassionaly make non-backwards compatable changes. The R core team has done an amazing job on the whole. And let's not shoot the bearers of bad news. Terry T

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:38:47 +0000 (UTC), Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck@myway.com> wrote : >DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USING .RBUILDIGNORE AND NOT > >The reason that the processing is different according to whether one >uses .Rbuildignore or not is that > R CMD build >takes the .Rbuildignore file into account but > R CMD install > R CMD check > R CMD build

Everyone: We're starting to see a rash of password guessing attacks via SSH on all of our exposed BSD servers which are running an SSH daemon. They're coming from multiple addresses, which makes us suspect that they're being carried out by a network of "bots" rather than a single attacker. But wait... there's more. The interesting thing about these attacks is that