search for: violating

violating.runs I read from the news cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2004-1.pdf that the criteria for the violating is 5 but 1)I cannot find "5" in the code of the function. Where is the "5" ? 2)What is the easiest way to change it ? 3)Is there any more criterias made somewhere ? Yo...

Hello, i heve a Suse 10.3 System and wine-1.1.34-3.1.i586. starts FTPRush show the FTPlog Errors Code: [i] FE: Access violation at address 7EB19997 in module 'winex11.drv'. Read of address 00000000 [i] FE: Access violation at address 7EB19997 in module 'winex11.drv'. Read of address 00000000 [i] FE: Access violation at address 7EB19997 in module 'winex11.drv'. Read of

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.3.5 Severity: normal Hi, I was having a look at logcheck and why I received a "verification failed: Temporary failure in name resolution" as a _system_ message. Turns out that since violations.d/logcheck is empty now, most of the rules in violations.ignore.d look quite useless, can you confirm? I suspect that a big part of those rules should be

After upgrading to centos 5.4 I am getting a selinux violation, yet nothing is logged to /var/log/audit/audit.log. Other violations do get logged. The violation occurs when running the following command on the mail server: aspen> /usr/bin/Mail centos at centos.org Subject: test hi Cc: aspen> send-mail: warning: premature end-of-input on /usr/sbin/postdrop -r while reading input

Just some clarification here. On Monday, June 30, 2003 12:04 AM, Steven Critchfield [SMTP:critch@basesys.com] wrote: > > As for slips and bipolar violations... > T1s are just high speed serial lines. A sleep is when you loose sync > with the far side and when you see a 1 come across the line, you may > not > know which bit it was for. A slip is when one end of the circuit is

Hi guys, now that violations.d/logcheck is empty, violations.ignore.d/logcheck-* are useless and many messages that were previously elevated and filtered there now turn up as system events. Thus, I went ahead and merged violations.ignore.d/logcheck-* into ignore.d.*/* in the viol-merge branch. http://git.debian.org/?p=logcheck/logcheck.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/viol-merge Unless I hear

Hi, sometimes I see following in the logs: /source4/rpc_server/drsuapi/writespn.c:234(dcesrv_drsuapi_DsWriteAccountSpn) Failed to modify SPNs on CN=PCNAME,CN=Computers,DC=DOMAIN,DC=NAME,DC=NAME,DC=de: error in module acl: Constraint violation during LDB_MODIFY (19) In the net i found this "explanation": "LDAP_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION Indicates that the attribute value specified in

Hi, I'm seeing this error on 3.0.24, 3.0.28, 3.0.32 and 3.2.6: Failed to join domain: failed to set machine spn: Constraint violation [Sanitised] First Run: net ads join createupn=HOST/FQDN@DOM.REALM.DOMAIN.COM createcomputer="OU/OU/OU/Services" -U username -d1 Enter username's password: [2008/12/11 17:02:32, 1] libnet/libnet_join.c:libnet_Join(1770) libnet_Join:

Ein eingebundener Text mit undefiniertem Zeichensatz wurde abgetrennt. Name: nicht verf?gbar URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20130304/62581e97/attachment.pl>

...and fines being brought against them. The popularity of the Internet and file sharing software has increased copyright violations. Copyright owners are starting to take a stand against copyright violators and are hunting down the perpetrators. Be careful you are not overstepping your boundaries and violating someone?s copyright law. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -------------- next part ----------...

Package: logcheck Version: 1.2.32 Severity: normal It seems when someone runs a sudo command on my system, logcheck misses it. The second line of /etc/logcheck/violations.d/sudo matches them, but the /etc/logcheck/violations.ignore.d/logcheck-sudo kills them. Furthermore, when users run commands like '$ sudo rm *' in a directory with lots of files, we reports with lines like: Jan 13

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.63 Severity: normal Given that violations.d/logcheck has been emptied by 2394562ab4a13c4510c671f01ffc8f35e97f1cd3, shouldn't most of violations.ignore.d be moved to one of ignore.d.*? AIUI, all of these are currently rendered useless. (I'll gladly lend a hand; I just want to make sure this is the right thing to do.) -- System Information: Debian

Content violation found in email message. From: samba@lists.samba.org To: serg@aesltd.com.au Subject: hi Matching Subject: hi

Gentlemen, I have searched the group and have not found any post that clarifies thsi s=issue to me. Please forgive me in advance if I missed something. I have 3 models: Ticket has_many :citations, :dependent => :nullify has_many :violations, :through => :citations Violation has_many :citations, :dependent => :nullify has_many :tickets, :through => :citations Citation

Hello, I am using Windows 7 and R version 2.13.1. I was trying to read a csv file which has about 1.5 million records and 13 variables. My R code loaded 145,346 records only without showing any error. If I want to see the last few records (tail), it is throwing access violation error. I am attaching the screenshot showing this error and the code I am running to read this file. While running

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.39 Severity: wishlist Hi, I'd like to add the following rule to /etc/logcheck/violations.ignore.d/logcheck-postfix : ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/smtpd?\[[0-9]+\]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from [._[:alnum:]-]+\[[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\]: 554 <[._[:alnum:]-]+\[[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\]>:

If I do something similar to the below ov_open always causes an access violation. The call to fopen is successful. Can anybody tell me why? (and how to fix it?) OggVorbis_File vf; int eof=0; int current_section; FILE *fd = fopen("c:\\test.ogg","rb"); if (!fd){ AfxTrace("fopen failed\n"); exit(0); } if(ov_open(fd, &vf, NULL, 0) < 0) {

On 02/19, Juneyoung Lee via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello, > > > Would it be correct to resolve this by saying that dereferenceable(N) > > *implies* not_poison? This would be helpful as a clarification of how > > it all fits together. > > Yes, I think it makes sense. I don't we should do that. Take the `gep inbounds` example: char* foo(char *arg) { return `gep

Hi All, I updated the copyright section of the developer policy: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#copyright This change doesn't affect any llvm policies, it just makes the developer policy reflect reality. The previous version (archived here: http://llvm.org/releases/2.7/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#copyright) used to claim that all copyright was assigned to the university of

On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 23:38 +0100, Markus Dellermann wrote: > sometimes I see following in the logs: > /source4/rpc_server/drsuapi/writespn.c:234(dcesrv_drsuapi_DsWriteAcco > untSpn) > Failed to modify SPNs on > CN=PCNAME,CN=Computers,DC=DOMAIN,DC=NAME,DC=NAME,DC=de: error in > module acl: > Constraint violation during LDB_MODIFY (19) I am seeing a very similar message -