On Sun, 27 May 2001 18:17:53 PDT, Karsten wrote:
> on Sun, May 27, 2001 at 06:11:11PM -0400, Paul Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 May 2001 14:07:46 PDT, Karsten wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > Testing is unstable + 10 days - bugs.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but only for
on Sun, May 27, 2001 at 06:27:00PM -0400, Carl Fink ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 02:07:46PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > Testing is unstable + 10 days - bugs.
>
> Oh.
>
> I misunderstood what it was for -- I always assumed it was "almost
> frozen" and once it was
on Sun, May 27, 2001 at 06:11:11PM -0400, Paul Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 14:07:46 PDT, Karsten wrote:
>
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > Testing is unstable + 10 days - bugs.
> >
>
> Yes, but only for packages that begin with "a" through "f" ;)
Pardon?
--
Karsten M. Self
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 02:07:46PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> Testing is unstable + 10 days - bugs.
Oh.
I misunderstood what it was for -- I always assumed it was "almost
frozen" and once it was created, packages in it would not be updated
except for necessary fixes. So it's basically "sl
On Sun, 27 May 2001 14:07:46 PDT, Karsten wrote:
>
> Wrong.
>
> Testing is unstable + 10 days - bugs.
>
Yes, but only for packages that begin with "a" through "f" ;)
(at least for the moment)
--
Paul T. Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-currently seeking employment-
on Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:59:47AM -0400, Carl Fink ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 12:20:14AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
>
> > If you don't want to be running year-old software (with the latest security
> > fixes backported), switch over to testing instead.
>
> Bad news:
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 02:39:46PM -0400, Paul Wright wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Someone's been port-scanning me, checking only some high ports. Here are
> my relevant log entries:
>
>
> May 26 13:39:30 j001 ippl: port 37397 connection attempt from 216.136.179.238
> May 26 13:43:03 j001 ippl: port 37
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:59:47AM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 12:20:14AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > If you don't want to be running year-old software (with the latest security
> > fixes backported), switch over to testing instead.
>
> Bad news: testing *is* year-old
Subject: Re: I've been getting scanned...
Date: Sat, May 26, 2001 at 09:18:46PM -0400
In reply to:Carl Fink
Quoting Carl Fink([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 06:08:59PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >
> > If this annoys you, take a trip into
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 12:20:14AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> If you don't want to be running year-old software (with the latest security
> fixes backported), switch over to testing instead.
Bad news: testing *is* year-old software. By the time it's stable it'll be
two eyars old.
I plan t
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 12:15:12AM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> It's just a constant frustration for me that to use the (most
> excellent) apt/dpkg system, I have to stay two years out of date.
Why? Pull the debianised source from testing/unstable and build a deb from
it against your system. Just be
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 12:15:12AM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> Which is kind of my point. If I were made dictator of the Debian
> project (not bloody likely) I would declare all distributions to age
> out at six months: at that point, unstable becomes testing, testing
> becomes frozen, frozen becom
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 12:01:35AM -0400, Eugene Tyurin wrote:
> How about such compiling portsentry from scratch? Novel idea, eh? :-)
I do it m'self, but I *prefer* to use the package system when I can.
It's just a constant frustration for me that to use the (most
excellent) apt/dpkg system,
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 09:18:46PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
>
> Presumably you meant "into testing" because it's not in stable. You can't
> install the testing version in stable easily, either, because of dependency
> problems.
How about such compiling portsentry from scratch? Novel idea, eh? :-
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 06:08:59PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> If this annoys you, take a trip into non-free and install portsentry:
Presumably you meant "into testing" because it's not in stable. You can't
install the testing version in stable easily, either, because of dependency
problems.
--
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Paul Wright wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Someone's been port-scanning me, checking only some high ports. Here are
>my relevant log entries:
>
>
>May 26 13:39:30 j001 ippl: port 37397 connection attempt from 216.136.179.238
>May 26 13:43:03 j001 ippl: port 37404 connection attempt from 2
*SNIP*
> Does anyone how I can find out who/where/what-domain or host is using that
> ip?
*SNIP*
Running a 'whois 216.136.179.238' gave me the following results:
Exodus Communications Inc.SantaClara-5 (NETBLK-EC20-2)
2831 Mission College Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95112
US
Netname: EC20-2
Netblock: 2
Hi all,
Someone's been port-scanning me, checking only some high ports. Here are
my relevant log entries:
May 26 13:39:30 j001 ippl: port 37397 connection attempt from 216.136.179.238
May 26 13:43:03 j001 ippl: port 37404 connection attempt from 216.136.179.238
May 26 13:43:06 j001 ippl: port 3
18 matches
Mail list logo
