Re: [bitfolk] "IPocalpyse"

Top Page
This message is part of the following thread:
M--++\the complete thread tree sorted by date
M-\MMMAndy Smith at <-
M\MDuane at e164 dot org at ->

Reply to this message
Author: Aaron B. Russell
Date:  
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] "IPocalpyse"
.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREDAAYFAk8cPEQACgkQIJm2TL8VSQsbIwCfbAS//PDP2jjA7n05mPCvl6an
i0YAn012rZI5eucFfmqsYb8UbCeJ7sSK
=gWk8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--15k5Fuw+yLfT1d9X-- 


From jgxenite@??? Sun Jan 22 16:50:12 2012
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48])
    by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
    (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jgxenite@???>) id 1Rp0cN-0002EL-L6
    for users@???; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:50:12 +0000
Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so1802939lah.21
    for <users@???>; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:50:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
    h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
    :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
    bh=CiDgTZ4Bu23qY9M24hphEIqlTtnKmzCejCWCbbqJ1GI=;
    b=RtCtlnwzWNfrGgn8HAi3WhAXGjHgdaVYOdHx2a55Nj5ippFNFbj5xcy204b0kuaQFn
    ub4w7nbTOJWWbbymgiGJbtfEXc8y0jAsUv4FokPO3yVuVoGgoXMCrKiUejVUdebCR8zb
    hgpI3gHTuubwmw0SZhMaa/Vz7SpT6gx+VpjPk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.105.175 with SMTP id gn15mr2663681lab.23.1327251004381;
    Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.29.193 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:50:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+pNL8p4aydzAK5UnkA=Aia3kBd0nLjv2GwL2TBHu4PY5WPDTA@???>
References: <CA+pNL8roGnQNDSa0JBc-mw_yrjyQ2FiyghXn_ngHDT8T=-Lccg@???>
    <CAJDzH8gjQE3LLVbtvyP30gyUdiBbfOM2jYXS7wAEh-rbZXKX2A@???>
    <CA+pNL8p4aydzAK5UnkA=Aia3kBd0nLjv2GwL2TBHu4PY5WPDTA@???>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:50:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJDzH8iRmyiT6GoDfmL80g51gwkf=USQJtqJ3b3wG3_76+fM2A@???>
From: James Gregory <jgxenite@???>
To: Matthew Humphreys <matthew.humphreys@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sun,
    22 Jan 2012 16:50:11 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.215.48
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jgxenite@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
    spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
    DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
    SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
    low *      trust *      [209.85.215.48 listed in list.dnswl.org]
    * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
    * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
    author's *       domain
    * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
    *  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
    *      valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Cc: BitFolk Users <users@???>
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Trying to install apt-show-versions
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:50:13 -0000


Hi Matthew,

You should be able to upgrade it using the do-release-upgrade tool
built into Ubuntu - this document details how to do it:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EOLUpgrades/Dapper.

Andy also suggested an alternative, which is to request a temporary
new VPS with the latest version of Ubuntu on it then migrate
everything from your old to your new one -
https://tools.bitfolk.com/wiki/Migrating_to_a_new_VPS

James

On 22 January 2012 15:41, Matthew Humphreys
<matthew.humphreys@???> wrote:
> Thanks James=C2=A0=C2=A0 -=C2=A0 spot on!
>
> Can you advise the easiest way to upgrade to Heron?=C2=A0 I've tried via =
the
> control panel, but it doesn't seem to do anything!
>
> Any help much appreciated!
>
> Many thanks
>
>
> Matthew
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Matthew Humphreys
>
> Please help me raise money for The Anthony Nolan Trust
> http://www.bmycharity.com/matthewhumphreys
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On 22 January 2012 15:25, James Gregory <jgxenite@???> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matthew,
>>
>> Judging by the log output, you're running Ubuntu Dapper (6.06), which
>> (for servers) went End of Life in June. That means no updates are
>> being released for it, and the apt repositories won't have been
>> updated. You should really upgrade to (at the least) the next LTS,
>> which is Hardy (8.04) (and is supported until 2013).
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> James
>>
>> On 22 January 2012 15:18, Matthew Humphreys
>> <matthew.humphreys@???> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm trying to install "apt-show-versions" to allow me to upgrade some
>> > packages on my server.
>> >
>> > sudo apt-get install apt-show-versions generates the following
>> > response:-
>> >
>> > ---------------------------
>> > matthew@mail:~$ sudo apt-get install apt-show-versions
>> > Reading package lists... Done
>> > Building dependency tree... Done
>> > The following NEW packages will be installed
>> > =C2=A0 apt-show-versions
>> > 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 35 not upgraded.
>> > 1 not fully installed or removed.
>> > Need to get 18.9kB of archives.
>> > After unpacking 123kB of additional disk space will be used.
>> > WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!
>> > =C2=A0 apt-show-versions
>> > Install these packages without verification [y/N]? y
>> > Errhttp://apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com dapper/universe apt-show-versions
>> > 0.09ubuntu1
>> > =C2=A0 404 Not Found
>> > Failed to fetch
>> >
>> > http://apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/=
pool/universe/a/apt-show-versions/apt-show-versions_0.09ubuntu1_all.deb
>> > 404 Not Found
>> > E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with
>> > --fix-missing?
>> > matthew@mail:~$
>> > ---------------------------
>> >
>> > Can anyone suggest a fix - or am I doing something wrong?
>> >
>> > I also ran apt-get update=C2=A0 and=C2=A0=C2=A0 sudo apt-get install a=
pt-show-versions
>> > --fix-missing, but this didn't help!
>> >
>> > Many thanks
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Matthew
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > users mailing list
>> > users@???
>> > https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>> >
>
> 


From andy@??? Sun Jan 22 16:53:50 2012
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
    (envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1Rp0fu-0002Ww-73
    for users@???; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:53:50 +0000
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:53:50 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: users@???
Message-ID: <20120122165350.GG23380@???>
References: <CA+pNL8roGnQNDSa0JBc-mw_yrjyQ2FiyghXn_ngHDT8T=-Lccg@???>
    <CAJDzH8gjQE3LLVbtvyP30gyUdiBbfOM2jYXS7wAEh-rbZXKX2A@???>
    <CA+pNL8p4aydzAK5UnkA=Aia3kBd0nLjv2GwL2TBHu4PY5WPDTA@???>
    <CAJDzH8iRmyiT6GoDfmL80g51gwkf=USQJtqJ3b3wG3_76+fM2A@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJDzH8iRmyiT6GoDfmL80g51gwkf=USQJtqJ3b3wG3_76+fM2A@???>
OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sun,
    22 Jan 2012 16:53:50 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
    spamd2.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_RELAYS shortcircuit=no
    autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Trying to install apt-show-versions
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:53:50 -0000


Hi,

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 04:50:04PM +0000, James Gregory wrote:
> Andy also suggested an alternative, which is to request a temporary
> new VPS with the latest version of Ubuntu on it then migrate
> everything from your old to your new one -
> https://tools.bitfolk.com/wiki/Migrating_to_a_new_VPS

I'd do it this way. It's a very big upgrade otherwise.

Cheers,
Andy

--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting 


From murray.crane@??? Wed Jan 25 14:44:05 2012
Received: from mail-qy0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176])
    by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
    (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murray.crane@???>)
    id 1Rq44z-000421-Cg
    for users@???; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:44:05 +0000
Received: by qcsg14 with SMTP id g14so2390630qcs.21
    for <users@???>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:43:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
    h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
    bh=E4e5EZv4ORSmdwH4QO1WfqUsA4cCDiT6rnCD9xSxEvg=;
    b=umuQyuzkXfu3UVy+xkomh4+1u0uoRd7cFjAYt5uxEuQHYZ7I0Zpja3mVUOXte42ODI
    MjT2swH58zdWs5Bhv8VPHEwwEnu2ZcDLFEpfRL8bANH+bgytEppQhuTnMc6gC58jiki3
    f1M9BU3M5QJOpw14kEJJNf++BOisummqb/SIs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.192.10 with SMTP id do10mr20919625qab.50.1327502637458;
    Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.216.68 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:43:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAiW_GkqDZG6hA3OtWsdi69vskX0=2OMkd8B9JXPjNmC_YDTGA@???>
From: Murray Crane <murray.crane@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3005130e24e53904b75b4b1f
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Wed,
    25 Jan 2012 14:44:05 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.216.176
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: murray.crane@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
    spamd1.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
    DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no
    autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
    low *      trust
    *      [209.85.216.176 listed in list.dnswl.org]
    * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
    *  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
    * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
    author's *       domain
    * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
    *  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
    *      valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: [bitfolk] OT: CPanel install sizes
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:44:06 -0000


--20cf3005130e24e53904b75b4b1f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I must confess, straight off the bat, that this has nothing to do with
Bitfolk, but you're the most knowledgeable group of guys and gals I know
when it comes to Linuxy things.

What's considered "normal" when it comes to the size of a CPanel
installation? I've got a VPS with a US provider, and the CPanel folder is
over 2GB, and that just feels wrong to me, but I don't have anything for
comparison.

Kind regards

Murray Crane

--20cf3005130e24e53904b75b4b1f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<font>I must confess, straight off the bat, that this has nothing to do wit=
h Bitfolk, but you&#39;re the most knowledgeable group of guys and gals I k=
now when it comes to Linuxy things.<br><br>What&#39;s considered &quot;norm=
al&quot; when it comes to the size of a CPanel installation? I&#39;ve got a=
VPS </font>with a US provider, and the CPanel folder is over 2GB, and that=
just feels wrong to me, but I don&#39;t have anything for comparison.<br>
<br clear=3D"all">Kind regards<br><br>Murray Crane<br><br>

--20cf3005130e24e53904b75b4b1f-- 


From ian@??? Wed Jan 25 15:17:30 2012
Received: from [85.119.83.38] (helo=topcat.semi-divine.com)
    by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
    (envelope-from <ian@???>) id 1Rq4bK-0005t4-Tb
    for users@???; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:17:30 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.23]
    (cpc3-nwrk4-2-0-cust250.12-1.cable.virginmedia.com [86.26.44.251])
    by topcat.semi-divine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24F68842FC
    for <users@???>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:17:28 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4F201D07.7040305@???>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:17:27 +0000
From: Ian <ian@???>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
    rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@???
References: <20110601222858.GC4363@???>    <cd0afa03743d0a48622e725fefcbec13.squirrel@???>    <20110601224603.GD4363@???>
    <4E3EED07.40408@???>    <20110807195916.GD5935@???>
    <4E3EF223.9070901@???>    <20110807202209.GL5968@???>
    <4E3EF573.2050101@???>    <20110807203357.GE5935@???>
    <4E40414E.90704@???> <20110808201035.GK5935@???>
    <4E41B36B.7090002@???> <4F133E16.5070303@???>
In-Reply-To: <4F133E16.5070303@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-bitfolk.com-Metrics-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for
    85.119.83.38 (failed)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Wed,
    25 Jan 2012 15:17:30 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 85.119.83.38
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ian@???
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.bitfolk.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Lenny-to-Squeeze Upgrade Plan - 2nd opinions sought!
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:17:31 -0000


I said...

> 6. The oddity common to both is that although BIND9 is up and running..
>
> >/etc/init.d/bind9 status
> bind9 is running.
>
> .. and it's doing zone transfers, the BIND Webmin 1.570 module doesn't
> seem to think that it is. Instead of the usual options to
>
> Apply configuration
> or
> Stop BIND
>
> .. there's
>
> Start BIND
>
> instead. Does anyone else use Webmin?

Ah ha. Having found
<http://forums.rimuhosting.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498>, it appears
Webmin is looking in the wrong place (and despite having had an upgrade
in the last few days, the webmin.com version at least is still doing it
a year or so after Squeeze's release!)

Editing the pid_file line in /etc/webmin/bind8/config to

pid_file=/var/run/named/named.pid /var/run/named.pid

works.

Fortunately, I don't seem to have had the other problems mentioned there.

Ian 





From sundancecloud@??? Thu Jan 26 03:30:28 2012
Received: from mail-vw0-f48.google.com ([209.85.212.48])
    by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
    (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <sundancecloud@???>)
    id 1RqG2e-0004KH-0M
    for users@???; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:30:28 +0000
Received: by vbbfn1 with SMTP id fn1so134090vbb.21
    for <users@???>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:30:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
    h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
    :content-type; bh=ptTW0dB6P2xI9Prq0O0edgL1tcCvErj0Auh52K4I4sw=;
    b=DubCpjFHsjaax7iocOPnv8Fjs9gbDs3gq7+Qz4V9IlP2nacPSgDm6iWYea2JL7wtDj
    5Gv/ZQTnPKGeSxL+28hSPdkLyY6qPeDq6uZYs2Psi8Y3lvNqulfq/Y3f5YhVRS6XfuHN
    mwY53d9AlL1/PwQ/j5ic4vZxC9om8tZs+FhEs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.19.166 with SMTP id g6mr173215vde.10.1327548620938; Wed, 25
    Jan 2012 19:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.210.65 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:30:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20120122115457.GA23380@???>
References: <CAF=eGRi_CyUsmuN1AqG3q0T=mwTm2MZfbEjqCW-Dz3KTKkipiw@???>
    <20120122115457.GA23380@???>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:30:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL7LUj9u2usZUmt+Wx5XAms5JOa+tKbw_2qVKMUepUYDMB+Vdw@???>
From: S P <sundancecloud@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9c66f91c4004b765ffbc
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Thu,
    26 Jan 2012 03:30:28 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.212.48
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sundancecloud@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
    spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.212.0/24
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
    DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no
    autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
    low *      trust *      [209.85.212.48 listed in list.dnswl.org]
    * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
    *  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
    * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
    author's *       domain
    * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
    *  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
    *      valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Finding out old IP users
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
    <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:30:28 -0000


--20cf307c9c66f91c4004b765ffbc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Andy,

I got your point about "ip addr del ...", but could you help out with "...
then remove from network configuration ..."?

Thanks,
Sandy

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Andy Smith <andy@???> wrote:

> Hi Taavi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 01:47:58PM +0200, Taavi Ilves wrote:
> > Has anyone a simple solution for catching where from and which
> > protocol are those connections coming for old IP?
>
> # tcpdump -vpni eth0 'host 212.13.19X.Y'
>
> I've had a quick look and it seems to mostly just be random useless
> traffic. You could avoid being warned again by removing the IP
> address entirely:
>
> # ip addr del 212.13.19X.Y dev eth0
>
> (then remove from network configuration so it doesn't come back next
> time you boot)
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> --
> http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>

--20cf307c9c66f91c4004b765ffbc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Andy,<br><br>I got your point about &quot;ip addr del ...&quot;, but could =
you help out with &quot;... then remove from
This message was posted to the following mailing lists:
users
Mailing List Info | Nearby Messages		<-Re: [bitfolk] "IPocalpyse"Re: [bitfolk] "IPocalpyse"->
Bitfolk Mailing List Archive administrated by List AdminLurker (version 2.3)