headers
Generic Player | 1 Jun 2002 04:45
Favicon

Re: wicontrol broken in 3.1?

On May 31, 2002 08:47 am, Nathan Ryan Milford wrote:
> I have not experienced this issue running 3.1. 

What kind of cards?  I only have lucent cards, no prism2s, but since 
sometime marchish in 3.0-current this problem has existed, at least for 
lucent cards.  It only seems to be an issue in ad-hoc mode.

> 
> Quoting Generic Player <suck <at> my-balls.com>:
> 
> > In openbsd 2.8 - 3.0, wicontrol -f 11 would set the channel to 11, 
right
> > 
> > then and there.  Now in 3.1, it has no effect unless you ifconfig 
wi0 
> > down; ifconfig wi0 up afterwards.  Is this intentional for some 
reason,
> > 
> > or is it broken?  Changing from BSS to ad-hoc seems to work 
normally, 
> > but changing channels or station names requires the down;up deal.
> > 
> > Adam
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
McKevitt, Larry | 1 Jun 2002 01:03

Re: a good mail server

>  Again we need clustering, imap,pop3 and smtp capabilities. I just
> wanted to get some suggestions from you guys so I can start to granulize
> my search.
> 
> Thanks in advance and have a great weekend,
> 
> Neal 
> 
	Neal, I assume that you have 8 exchange boxes
	simply because exchange can't handle 60,000
	users on one box, right?  Why not take clustering
	out of the equation?  One nice, central box should 
	take care of your needs.  As far as the groupware
	goes... define what you need, hire a good php
	programmer, and roll your own web app.
	60 freaking thousand users!!

	-larry
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tamas TEVESZ | 1 Jun 2002 01:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: a good mail server

On Fri, 31 May 2002, neal hamilton wrote:

 > source unix smtp,pop-3 and imap solution. Currently we have 8 email
 > servers in a cluster to support about 60,000 employees. The servers are
 > amd 1.5 ghz athlons with 60 gig drives and 1 gig pc-2100 memory. We are

i have approx. 45000 mailboxes on one box (p3/550 with 1gig of
pc133 ram), with exim as mta, and courier as pop/imap. never had any
problems with it. box is so loaded [;>] hardware-wise cause it runs a
mysqld too, which is hit kindof heavily (drives the whole
mail/pop/imap stuff, plus a reasonably big webserver, plus several
smaller things).

(as a side note, outlook can use shared calendars and the like, as
long as they're on pop3. for some obnoxious reasons it doesn't, if you
put the users on imap.)

--

-- 
[-]
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Richard Welty | 1 Jun 2002 01:30

Re: a good mail server

On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:08:24 +1200 (New Zealand Standard Time) Juha Saarinen <juha <at> saarinen.org> wrote:
> Don't know about clustering, but a combination of Exim and Courier-IMAP
> has worked well for us in the past few years.

any of exim, postfix, or qmail can probably handle this load, although you
will probably want to built multiple mx hosts for inbound, and may also
want to distribute outbound across multiple outbound relays if there's a
lot of load. i like exim, personally, but qmail and postfix are both well
regarded MTAs.

the more important thing is the pop/imap handling. you should definitely
look at Courier (as Juha mentioned) and at Cyrus (as another post
mentions). this is going to be the key performance problem, not the MTA
piece.

> Groupware features such as group scheduling will be tricky to replace
> though.

i'm not familiar with any good open source group schedulers. there are some
Un*x schedulers out there that are supposedly pretty good, but nothing
that's free.

richard
--
Richard Welty                                         rwelty <at> averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking                                         518-573-7592
              Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Yuri K | 1 Jun 2002 01:36
Favicon

Re: a good mail server

d> QMail well is considered slightly more secure by
d> some.

Hearsay says Yes, record says both of them are very powerful
and securable. I would not ask without doing my own research if it
really were 60k accounts.  Security record for Postfix is slightly
better though, and qmail may be overwhelming for Windows hands at
first. Qmail scales very well at Yahoo.com
--

-- 
Best regards,
 Yuri
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Artur Grabowski | 1 Jun 2002 01:48

Re: secure by default

mark.l.johnson <at> barclays.co.uk writes:

> my question is with those services now switched on (apache, php & mysql) how
> secure is my openbsd box now? compared to my slackware / red hat / apple
> box?

Somewhere around 37 and 41.

//art
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ben Goren | 1 Jun 2002 02:15
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: secure by default

On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 01:48:25AM +0200, Artur Grabowski wrote:

> mark.l.johnson <at> barclays.co.uk writes:
>
> > my question  is with those  services now switched  on (apache,
> > php & mysql) how secure is  my openbsd box now? compared to my
> > slackware / red hat / apple box?
>
> Somewhere around 37 and 41.

...on a scale of e^(i)(pi) to Aleph(null)-1, of course....

b&

--
Ben Goren
 mailto:ben <at> trumpetpower.com
 http://www.trumpetpower.com/
 icbm:33o25'37"N_111o57'32"W

[demime 0.98d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
kjell | 1 Jun 2002 02:19
Favicon

Re: a good mail server

This isn't really the right forum for this question. I would
take the question to the various MTA mailing lists and ask for some
case studies. (postfix, qmail, and sendmail would be my choices)

> Security record for Postfix is slightly better though

This comment bugs me a bit, though. I can think of at LEAST two
postfix issues, historically, though both were in combination
with other pieces of software, and not postfix issues, per se:

http://online.securityfocus.com/bid/1428
http://www.openbsd.org/errata30.html#sudo

I can't think of any qmail ones.

But again, here is probably not the forum.

-kj
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kit Halsted | 1 Jun 2002 02:30
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: a good mail server

At 11:36 PM +0000 5/31/02, Yuri K wrote:
>d> QMail well is considered slightly more secure by
>d> some.
>
>Hearsay says Yes, record says both of them are very powerful
>and securable. I would not ask without doing my own research if it
>really were 60k accounts.  Security record for Postfix is slightly
>better though,

Okay, i was trying to stay out of the mail server discussion, but 
that's just plain wrong! I am not aware of any security issues with 
qmail. At all. Please, by all means, inform me if I'm wrong. Postfix, 
OtOH, had at least this:

<http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2002-01/1584.html>

It starts:

"Summary:
     A security issue has been found by Sebastian Krahmer of the
     SuSE Security Team in Sudo versions 1.6.0 - 1.6.3p7. When the
     Postfix sendmail replacement is installed on a machine an
     attacker may be able to gain root privileges by way of Sudo.
     The bug is not believed to be exploitable when sendmail, the
     mailer OpenBSD ships with, is installed."

>and qmail may be overwhelming for Windows hands at first.

Well, yeah, but so can Unix in general.  ;)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gavin Li | 1 Jun 2002 02:37
Picon
Favicon

How to config IBM token ring card

I installed IBM Auto 16/4 ISA token ring card before I
started install OBSD3.1, and I found the kernel
indentifed that card correctly. After I finished
install the base system, I used "ifconfig -a" tried to
find out which is that token ring card, but none of
them seems to be the token ring card, They are:

ifconfig -a
lo0: flags=9049....
lo1: flags=8008<LOOPBACK, MULTICAST> mtu 33224
dc0: .... my ethernet card
pflog0: flags=0 <> mtu 33224
sl0:
sl1:
ppp0:
ppp1:
tun0:
tun1:
enc0:
bridge0:
bridge1:
vlan0:
vlan1:
gre0:
gif0:
gif1:
gif2:
gif3:

So, How could I config my token ring card, please give
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane