similar to: Admin business

John accused me of complaining about systemd... this here's *real* complaining. Several times every month, my email starts getting bounced by freakin' nixspam, because my giant hosting provider, that hosts millions of domains. Akemi has argued that nixspam works just fine (if so, then why did we get that spam a few weeks ago?). I've politely requested being put on a whitelist, and

Gary Stainburn wrote: > Bad news Guys, they've just moved the emails to somewhere else and have > started again: <snip> A suggestion: there should be a way to filter using *domain* AND mailhost; that is, if emails come from a domain, and through one mailhost, then block the domain. If many domains, and the same mailhost, only then block the mailhost. I've been thinking about

Hi All, smplayer has no mailing list. I tried to register at http://forum.smplayer.info/ucp.php?mode=register but the capchas are so incredibly impossible to discern that I gave up after 5 tries. I tried the audio option, but the audio option plays so garbled it is impossible to understand. My audio is great. I play youtube vids with great clarity. So I am hoping someone who is on that forum to

Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 10/26/2015 08:23 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> We've got a new RAID (a JetStor), and are trying to >> plug it in. > > When you asked about this three weeks ago, you didn't answer questions > about the model of JetStor product, and the conversation died there. > Could you provide that? I thought I had (unless it bounced, thanks to

In case someone's using the nixspam RBL and wondering why the influx from the CentOS mailing lists has stopped today: http://www.dnsbl.manitu.net/lookup.php?language=en&value=72.21.40.12 Kai -- Kai Sch?tzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com

I've been blocked twice this morning, and removed myself once - the first time, by the time I got to work and looked at the list, it was already gone. My hosting provider works with those jerks at manitu. I've ranted a number of times over the years at why their method is a *lousy* method for blocking spam in the second decade of the 21st century. Now this: here's another argument as

try creating small /boot partition for kernel and then rest of disk for lvm.. -- Eero 2015-04-10 22:01 GMT+03:00 <m.roth at 5-cent.us>: > Chuck Campbell wrote: > > I'm really at a loss. > > I had 5.11 running on this machine, from this physical boot disk, until I > > stepped on /bin the other day. > > > > I've tried installing Centos 5.10 and 5.11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <m.roth at 5-cent.us> Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:40 PM Subject: For the CentOS list: rkhunter and NFS To: lesmikesell at gmail.com Hi, Les, Could you forward this to the CentOS list? That damn nixspam is blocking my hosting provider's mailhost *again*; it was on and off yesterday, and today it won't even let me remove it, and

Nomii Pro wrote: > Nomiipro at gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Having looked at the headers, I see that this is the new thing onlist - we're being spammed from gmail. Does this mean nixspam will be blocking gmail anytime soon? mark, tired of

I'm really at a loss. I had 5.11 running on this machine, from this physical boot disk, until I stepped on /bin the other day. I've tried installing Centos 5.10 and 5.11 to this Seagate 1TB drive. Both installs run perfectly, but when I try to reboot, grub says Filesystem type unknown, partition type 0xee googling this indicates that the disk has a GUID partition table. This must have

> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the > opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (use of any > option which the linker doesn't support in this form can be fatal). > Starting small is the best way, with `-l` and `-L` as a starting point. I >

dear list! I KNOW this has been answered a million times before. But, as some might remember from their "freelance" times as a statistic consultant, sometimes you're blinded by the facts. I KNOW I have seen this problem solved, but due to the mental blockade i have been suffering from the last 3 hours, I can neither find the answer on the mailing list nor on google. I wrote a

ClueCon is coming in 2 weeks so we urge everyone who plans on attending to register today so we get a proper headcount! ClueCon was put together by Asterlink, the same team of people who helped shape Asterisk into what it is today by writing features, fixing bugs, offering IRC support and assisting with the management of the development effort. We have produced several real-world solutions based

Received -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of centos-request at centos.org Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 6:00 AM To: centos at centos.org Subject: CentOS Digest, Vol 118, Issue 20 - Email found in subject Send CentOS mailing list submissions to centos at centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide

Just keep clicking on the little refresh button to the right of the image until you get one that you can easily decipher. Just tried this and 5/10 were ok. Kahlil (Kal) Hodgson GPG: C9A02289 Head of Technology (m) +61 (0) 4 2573 0382 DealMax Pty Ltd GitHub: @tartansandal Suite 1416 401 Docklands Drive Docklands VIC 3008

hi jd1008, you do have your problems. ;-) On 06/12/2015 09:40 PM, jd1008 wrote: > Hi All, > smplayer has no mailing list. > I tried to register at > http://forum.smplayer.info/ucp.php?mode=register > but the capchas are so incredibly impossible to discern > that I gave up after 5 tries. > I tried the audio option, but the audio option plays so garbled > it is impossible

On Jan 7, 2018 5:02 PM, "Cary Coutant via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the > opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (use of any > option which the linker doesn't support in this

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > Instead of a blacklist, why not a whitelist? Given the size of LangRef, > you're bound to leave something out of your blacklist that needs to be > there (also, future additions to LLVM IR will need to be added to the > blacklist; are you sure you can catch *all* of them?). A whitelist seems >

listadmin, Can you PLEASE, PLEASE find *any* other blacklist than manitu? This asshole's method was ok a dozen years ago; these days, with hosting sites hosting tens or hundreds of thousands of domains, with too many running Windows, and so infected and sending out spam. They then send all mail via one mailhost, with the result that those of us with *no* spam coming out are frequently

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > >> Instead of a blacklist, why not a whitelist? Given the size of LangRef, >> you're bound to leave something out of your blacklist that needs to be >> there (also, future additions to