search for: smithson

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > reassign 352043 logcheck Bug#352043: please integrate dovecot logcheck rule in the dovecot-common package Bug reassigned from package `dovecot-common' to `logcheck'. > retitle 352043 Please provide a backport of logcheck Bug#352043: please integrate dovecot logcheck rule in the dovecot-common package Changed Bug title. >

Package: logcheck Severity: wishlist I see no reason why /etc/logcheck should have any more permissions than 0750. Please consider removing access rights from 'other'. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers stable APT policy: (700, 'stable'), (600, 'testing'), (98, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686)

Package: courier-imap-ssl,logcheck-database Severity: wishlist Please move /etc/logcheck/*/courier to the courier packages and out of logcheck-database. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers stable APT policy: (700, 'stable'), (600, 'testing'), (98, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.40 Severity: wishlist Hi, Please duplicate the imap-login related lines and change them to filter out the equivalent messages emitted by pop3-login. regards Andrew -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel:

...ehalf Of Daniel J Walsh Sent: 01 December 2014 15:10 To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] SEtroubleshootd Crashing I am not sure. I was just seeing email on this today. Could you try to downgrade the latest version of libxml to see if the problem goes away. On 12/01/2014 10:01 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: > Thanks > > Could you please clarify, which version libxml is broken and has there been a newer version released that will fix it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On > Behalf Of Daniel J Walsh &gt...

...sure if this message ever made it to you, Jamie. I had a reverse DNS problem shortly after it was sent. ----- Forwarded message from Todd Troxell <ttroxell at debian.org> ----- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 01:22:18 -0400 From: Todd Troxell <ttroxell at debian.org> To: "Jamie L. Penman-Smithson" <jamie at silverdream.org> Subject: Re: Logcheck rules from other packages Hey Jamie, On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 09:57:32PM +0100, Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote: > Hey Todd, > > I'm not so sure about the policy of handing over responsibility for > package specific rules...

...peated 2 times Dec 2 10:04:06 server sedispatch: AVC Message for setroubleshoot, dropping message Dec 2 10:04:06 server sedispatch: last message repeated 3 times Cheers, John On 1 December 2014 at 17:19, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com> wrote: > > On 12/01/2014 10:39 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: > > We are currently running libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.2.x86_64 > > > > How far back would you suggest we go? would > libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.1.x86_64 be sufficient > Ok might not be related. One other suggestion would be to clear the > database out. And see if there...

On 12/01/2014 10:39 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: > We are currently running libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.2.x86_64 > > How far back would you suggest we go? would libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.1.x86_64 be sufficient Ok might not be related. One other suggestion would be to clear the database out. And see if there was something in the database...

...e----- From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Daniel J Walsh Sent: 01 December 2014 14:58 To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] SEtroubleshootd Crashing This seems to be a problem with an updated version of libxml. On 11/28/2014 09:04 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: > When running Node.js through Phusion Passenger on Centos 6.5 ( Linux 2.6.32-431.23.3.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Jul 31 17:20:51 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux), with SELinux enabled in permissive mode we receive a large number of entries in the audit.log and setroubleshootd randomly...

...> > message > > Dec 2 10:04:06 server sedispatch: last message repeated 3 times > > > > Cheers, > > > > John > > > > On 1 December 2014 at 17:19, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On 12/01/2014 10:39 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: > >>> We are currently running libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.2.x86_64 > >>> > >>> How far back would you suggest we go? would > >> libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.1.x86_64 be sufficient > >> Ok might not be related. One other suggestion would be to clea...

Hi, i'm working with a interesting book from Michael Smithson: "Fuzzy Set Analysis for Behavioral and Social Sciences",1987. with small listenings in Fortran. It's a pitty that i'm more or less understand nothing from Fortran - have anybody an sugestion or perhaps interesting (...incl. Fortran skills ?) how i can get it in R or Java. Now a...

...last message repeated 3 times > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> On 1 December 2014 at 17:19, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 12/01/2014 10:39 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: > >>>>> We are currently running libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.2.x86_64 > >>>>> > >>>>> How far back would you suggest we go? would > >>>> libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.1.x86_64 be sufficient > >>>> Ok might not be related...

Package: logcheck Version: 1.2.39 Followup-For: Bug #303661 Attached is another entry that suppresses the adjustment messages -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.11.7-grsec Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages logcheck depends on: ii

...dispatch: AVC Message for setroubleshoot, dropping > message > Dec 2 10:04:06 server sedispatch: last message repeated 3 times > > Cheers, > > John > > On 1 December 2014 at 17:19, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 12/01/2014 10:39 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: >>> We are currently running libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.2.x86_64 >>> >>> How far back would you suggest we go? would >> libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.1.x86_64 be sufficient >> Ok might not be related. One other suggestion would be to clear the >> database o...

I am not sure. I was just seeing email on this today. Could you try to downgrade the latest version of libxml to see if the problem goes away. On 12/01/2014 10:01 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: > Thanks > > Could you please clarify, which version libxml is broken and has there been a newer version released that will fix it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Daniel J Walsh > Sen...

Package: logcheck-database Severity: wishlist Hi! if autossh debug is enabled it logs to syslog, thus the messages go thru logcheck, messages are in this form May 19 14:02:55 sagara autossh[1909]: port set to 0, monitoring disabled so this is the ignore line ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ autossh\[[0-9]+\]: .*$ thanks, filippo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment

...> Dec 2 10:04:06 server sedispatch: last message repeated 3 times >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> John >>> >>> On 1 December 2014 at 17:19, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/01/2014 10:39 AM, Gary Smithson wrote: >>>>> We are currently running libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.2.x86_64 >>>>> >>>>> How far back would you suggest we go? would >>>> libxml2-2.7.6-14.el6_5.1.x86_64 be sufficient >>>> Ok might not be related. One other suggestion w...

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.35 Severity: minor logcheck-database contain postgrey ignore file, but postgrey first attempt is listed in logcheck report $ dpkg -l postgrey ii postgrey 1.18-1 -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.4.29-C3EZRA Locale: LANG=it_IT,

Dear R-community, I have a short question: How do I interpret the result of a likelihood ratio test correctly? I am fitting a parametric survival model (with aftreg {eha}) and the output tells me the overall p-value of my model is < 0.001. My simple question is: Does the result mean my model fits the data well OR does it mean my model DOES NOT fit the data well? Some side information how the

R version: 2.7.0 Running on: WinXP I am trying to model damage from fire losses (given that the loss occurred). Since I have the individual insured amounts, rather than sampling dollar damage from a continuous distribution ranging from 0 to infinity, I want to sample from a percent damage distribution from 0-100%. One obvious solution is to use runif(n, min=0, max=1), but this does not seem to be