| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Comments:
<0> rhowe: Explains a lot.
<1> smsie: yes I did. And they won ;-P
<2> whyzzyrd: yeah. I wanna know why I can't claim that 2% back when I pay by cash though!
<3> i'm suddenly overjoyed that this is something I don't have to deal with.
<0> D-side: hehe
<1> oh. smsie, you're a debian devel no/
<4> rhowe: tried any of the Boon lambics? That's my favorite.
<5> my daughter's horrified because i had brain curry for dinner
<1> OldMonk: how old is she?
<4> rhowe: well, except for Cantillon Gueuze, which is to die for...
<5> 15 or something
<1> OldMonk: how in **** do you not know how old your daughter is?
<4> brain curry?
<6> "or something?"
<0> D-side: VAT is easy to understand: When you buy something, you pay more than what it says. So in the UK pricetags mean nothing ;) heh
<5> whyzzyrd: i'm bad with dates
<0> OldMonk: ... or something...?
<2> whyzzyrd: supposedly, although I have blessed little time to spend on it at the moment
<0> OldMonkwhyzzyrd: i'm bad with dates <--- See? Found my virgin :)
<5> Falchion: ****, i said i'm bad with dates! i don't even ****ing know how old i am until i sit down and calculate!
<4> Falchion has a sister who is almost legal... or something.
<1> ./msg x kick #linux Ka-bar Throwing up is done *outside*
<3> OldMonk: goat brain?
<5> D-side: yup
<0> Ka-bar: One is 31, the other is 10. :)
<3> OldMonk: i understand its quite good.
<3> local indian restaurant has it, but i've never been brave enough.
<7> when I do a yum update I get "kernel conflicts with iptables < 1.3.2-1" even if it sais that I have "iptables v1.3.5". What should I do?
<1> smsie: you any idea why they don't ship any 64G enabled kernels?
<5> D-side: was great while it was hot, then it cooled down and tasted horrible
<3> gelatinous, or the flavor changed?
<2> whyzzyrd: not a clue
<5> gelatinous
<4> eeewww
<3> i might give that a shot.
<8> whyzzyrd: PAE?
<3> people who say "eww" to different culture's foods are missing out usually.
<5> D-side: make sure it remains hot
<1> mod-: yup, I've got a box or few with more than 4G of ram.
<3> *usually*
<3> OldMonk: i'll be sure to, thanks.
<8> whyzzyrd: probably because it's such a minority thing
<4> D-side: sorry, but when I hear "brains" I can't help but thinking of Ray Liotta in Hannibal.
<1> mod-: And I can't use a debian kernel on them, because there's nothing beyond 4G support.
<5> hmm, haven't tried human brain curry
<3> Ka-bar: what a horrible movie
<3> what an even WORSE book
<0> Ka-bar: The monkey scene in the Indiana Jones movie
<8> whyzzyrd: and since distros try to have as few flavours as possible...
<1> OldMonk: too late
<1> mod-: well, there's already 2.6-686-smp, why not 2.6-686-smp-big***computer
<1> mod-: and many many other kernel flavours.
<4> I like the bubblegum flavoured kernel that comes with Fedora.
<9> can iptables do "dynamic redirection". ***uming Firewall 1 redirects port 80 requests to an internal Server A. in case Server A goes down, can iptables automatically redirect all requests to Server B for example ?
<5> lastman: you could script it
<8> whyzzyrd: all i see is 486/686/k7, with smp, xen and vserver flavours
<3> i installed the latest ubuntu in vmware today.
<9> ie. a ping script that runs every 5 minutes and changes the firewall rules ?
<4> lastman: or get a load-balancer appliance that supports failover
<3> it had a gui installer. i was impressed.
<10> 'Maybe I am indeed dreaming that we can "abandon" today's email SMTP much like the Usenet's NNTP was "abandoned" years ago for something better because that "something better" for email still doesn't even exist.'
<5> lastman: or you could pay an expert linux scripter who knows iptables a nominal fee to write it for you
<0> I hate userts that contact support and then argue with us. I am so tempted to go, "Sir, if you had a clue, you wouldn't have had to call us. Now shut up and do what I'm telling you to do."
<3> rhowe: bittorrent. :)
<10> Web-based forums? heh, what a crock they are
<5> coincidentally i happen to be an expert linux scripter who knows iptables.
<10> D-side: bleh, forget the binary postings
<3> rhowe: experts-exchange?
<0> rhowe: Web based forums allow control, unlike newsgroups.
<4> OldMonk: you whore
<8> rhowe: blogs *shudder*
<4> :)
<5> Ka-bar: yes?
<10> mod-: ugh
<11> tu administrate the right of the user on printer is it in samba (smb.conf) or it is in cups (cupsd.conf) i have to configuration?
<10> Falchion: I'm sure an NNTP gateway could be modified to allow moderation
<9> oldmonk: that was my question. can IPtables do it by itself or does it require a third party script that changes the rules ?
<8> so now we have this brave new era where, instead of posts being grouped by subject, they're being grouped by author
<4> yan20: english?
<0> rhowe: Besides, could you imagine AOL users trying to use newsgroups? :) Hmm, wait.. That'd a good thing...
<8> way to go
<5> lastman: i doubt if you can do it in iptables itself
<12> How is it possible that a device file is not allocated when i see that the driver for my 3com network card works in dmesg?
<0> mod-: Not true at all.
<1> rhowe: That article wasn't written by anyone in the real world..
<10> Falchion: I don't like things like phpBB
<0> Web based forums still group by subject.
<1> Falchion: Me Too!
<10> whyzzyrd: No, it totally missed the point
<11> excuse my english im french person
<0> rhowe: Why not?
<8> Falchion: i was referring to blogs
<0> mod-: My bad.
<10> whyzzyrd: Secure email is a reality, just that nobody can be bothered using it (S/MIME or GPG/PGP)
<0> yan20: We can excuse the english but not the part about you being french.
<5> why the **** are you reading my conversation with my daighter and relaying it here?
<3> haha coworker just txted my phone. "hope you're feeling better, the office ****s without you telling everyone to **** their mothers"
<4> lastman: no, iptables can't do failover all by itself. you'd need some kind of a watchdog program waiting for server A to go down and then change the iptables rules to redirect to server B.
<10> Falchion: They are cumbersome, basically, and you only have one interface to them - if you don't like the interface, you're screwed
<8> D-side: haha
<4> D-side: LOL
<1> rhowe: The problem is that we *want* to have unsolicted email. Not spam, but we want people to be able to contact us.
<0> rhowe: Just like Linux as a desktop is a reality, it's just that nobody can be bothered with using it :P
<10> whyzzyrd: Indeed
<5> Falchion: er, not true at all
<10> whyzzyrd: And as long as you have an "accept all" policy on messages from an external source, you will *always* get spammed
<4> Falchion: er, I use linux as my desktop.
<0> rhowe: so make a web-based forum that has interchangable interfaces :)
<1> rhowe: so we don't *want* to raise the bar on making mail work, we need to decapitate spammers.
<0> Ka-bar: Like I said, "nobody". ;)
<5> rhowe: you cl***ify spam and put it into a seperate folder, then scan the folder from time to time and pull out the false positives
<1> rhowe: and the best way to do that is to shoot all the idiots that buy the stuff they advertise.
<3> that'd be a fat lot of idiots.
<4> yan20: I don't recall asking you to /msg me. Please keep it in the channel. And, no, I can't help.
<10> OldMonk: yes, or conversely, you give priority to recognised legitimate mail
<5> rhowe: yeah, but you can't do that in a help desk setup
<7> is there a way I can find out on what packages do I have multiple versions installed?
<5> or in a marketing office
<10> whyzzyrd: Idiots and criminals, I hear
<0> Just send all mail to /dev/null. If its important, they can call.
<5> Darklord1: how did you install them?
<13> oi i have to study spanish for real!
<10> whyzzyrd: I saw something recently about spammers getting into trouble because criminals were using stolen credit cards to buy their wares!
<5> rhowe: bwaahaahaa!
<0> cheeksy: El burro en mi pantolones es muy grande.
<10> OldMonk: Yeah, made me chuckle too :)
<5> cheeksy: hijo di puta tu esta mi carida vaya con dios
<0> criminals++
<8> cheeksy: how come?
<7> I did a Fedora Core 5 to FC5 upgrade which didn't finish, and I think that there are many packages which have the new fc5 and the old fc4 version installed.
<5> but then the spammers are mafia too, so it's one branch of the mafia against another
<7> that must be why I lost hundreds of mb for no reason
<5> let the ****ers wipe each other out
<5> Darklord1: rpm -ql | sort
<10> Darklord1: You did an FC5 to FC5 upgrade?
<7> and just found out that I had 2 vers of iptables installed and now I need to find out on the other packages
<5> Darklord1: then give it a visual scan
<10> Darklord1: I bet that took ages
<0> You know, stopping spammers shouldn't be as difficult as it is.
<7> fc4 to fc5 sorry
<7> ok OldMonk thank you.
<5> Falchion: it is, because it's mafia, ergo it's law enforcement and politicians who get the money
<5> ``organ-sized crime''
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
#MissKitten
#chatzone
#networking
mplayer wmv crypted
ubuntu auto acquire how to
#c++
as_rights
javascript settimeout hta
#AllNiteCafe
mysql Got an error writing communication packets
|
|