similar to: Sharing violations on XP host

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

Hello, I have found a webserver that spits the cookie version as a float (1.2) instead of an integer as the protocol mandates. (www.alimentacion.carrefour.es) So far I have been changing line 33 in cookie.rb from when "version" then cookie.version = Integer(value) to when "version" then cookie.version = Integer(value.round) Of course every time WWW:Mechanize gets updated, I

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

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.44 Severity: minor Tags: patch Please change the following line in violations.ignore.d/logcheck-postfix: -^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/smtp\[[0-9]+\]: [[:upper:]0-9]+: to=<[^[:space:]]+>, relay=[._[:alnum:]-]+\[[0-9.]{7,15}\], delay=[0-9]+, status=(deferred|bounced) \(host [._[:alnum:]-]+\[[0-9.]{7,15}\] said: [45][0-9][0-9] .* \(in

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > # Commit 037fed5fc268088bad1f17c885d9153ee800ec40 > tag 444470 pending Bug#444470: /etc/logcheck/violations.ignore.d/logcheck-ssh: Updated "authentication failure" rule There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system

<nitpickyness> To avoid possible confusion, shouldn't this be named logcheck-pureftpd, or logcheck-pure-ftpd (instead of logcheck-pureftp)? Or is there a reason (that I've missed) it's this way? </nitpickyness> -j -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This

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, I'm getting to grips with using R to perform repeat measures analysis of variance and was wondering is there a potted method to obtain Huynh and Feldt or other adjustments for sphericity violations? Thanks Dominic Dr Dominic J Barraclough Dept Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood Av, Box 603, Rochester NY 14642 tel (716) 2753627 dominic_barraclough at

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39 ------- Additional Comments From stevesk at pobox.com 2002-04-05 19:58 ------- is this still an open issue? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From: Mircea C?rjaliu <mcirjaliu at bitdefender.com> This change is needed because the introspection tool can write-protect guest page tables, exec-protect heap/stack pages and let KVM emulate the instruction that caused these violations. Signed-off-by: Mircea C?rjaliu <mcirjaliu at bitdefender.com> Signed-off-by: Adalbert Laz?r <alazar at bitdefender.com> ---

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:36:18PM +0100, Robert Ladru via samba wrote: > Hello, > > I recently bought an Auralic Aries Mini streamer. This little streamer > can also function as a NAS when mounting a laptop drive or ssd inside, > via samba. > The box did not come with a media containing source code and did not > include a GPL written offer. > > So I asked Auralic to

Hi all, This is really a stats question as much as an R question. I'm trying to do a joint scaling test (JST - see below) on some very oddly-distributed data and was wondering if anyone can suggest a good way of dealing with model violations and/or using R to evaluate how sensitive the model is to violations of the normality assumption. Here's a quick explanation of the analysis, the

In article <20080120021013.GA2871__36835.8155632906$1200797204$gmane$org at nexus.elho.net> you wrote: > Looking at those two lines, they could just be different versions of > the same thing, here are the commented differences: Take my word: you'll live longer if you don't try to make sense of ssh log messages. (I *swear* I once got different messages by doing the same thing

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.47 Severity: normal Tags: patch Without the following logcheck line in /etc/logcheck/violations.ignore.d, lines such as the following are reported: postfix/smtp[30054]: 824E9A2C1E: to=<nooneisillegal at someplace.net>, relay=0.0.0.0[0.0.0.0], delay=1, status=sent (250 2.6.0 Ok, id=30274-22, from MTA: 250 Ok: queued as 15140A2D0A) This is because

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:]-]+\[[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\]>:

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.69 Severity: normal Tags: patch Hi, I think that this rule: ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ su\[[0-9]+\]: (\+|-) (pts/[0-9]{1,2}|tty[0-9]) [_[:alnum:]-]+:[_[:alnum:]-]+$ is supposed to filter out lines like: Oct 17 14:49:24 myhost su[13469]: + /dev/pts/1 user1:root It is not working because the pattern dos not include the "/dev/" part and

From: Mircea C?rjaliu <mcirjaliu at bitdefender.com> This change is needed because the introspection tool can write-protect guest page tables or exec-protect heap/stack pages. Signed-off-by: Mircea C?rjaliu <mcirjaliu at bitdefender.com> Co-developed-by: Adalbert Laz?r <alazar at bitdefender.com> Signed-off-by: Adalbert Laz?r <alazar at bitdefender.com> ---

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.62 Severity: normal File: /etc/logcheck/violations.ignore.d/logcheck-ssh Somewhere between etch and now, ssh stopped reporting failed passwords as "error: PAM: Authentication failure for foo", and switched to "Failed password for foo", similar to what it already did for unknown users, but without the "invalid user" 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

Since upgrading to Rails 1.1, I now get these errors: PGError: ERROR: null value in column "added" violates not-null constraint : INSERT INTO authors ("added", ...) VALUES(NULL, ...) The ''added'' column has a default of current_timestamp, and this used to work fine with Rails 1.0. Are we supposed to put default values in models'' before_create or