search for: violator

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 ? Yours sincerelly, Tommi Viitanen

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>

...Simple things like uploading, downloading and sharing music or movie files can result in serious charges 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. Tr...

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

...igned to the university of illinois. Since LLVM doesn't have a written copyright assignment process, this is just not true. In practice, copyright assignment is really only useful (afaik) for two things: 1) being able to change the copyright in the future. 2) having a single entity to down violators of the license. Since neither of these are really interesting goals for the project, having distributed copyright is not a problem. My personal belief is that, for almost all contributors, distributed copyright is better, because it means that your code won't be changed to a different licens...

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 -