First, we just startet using this wonderful system as 3.0.2 and think it's great! I installed our server according to the Debian Perfect Server ispconfig 3 guide and everything seems to work fine. Today I successfully upgraded to 3.0.3. I do however get 2 warings. They were both present in 3.0.2 and also in 3.0.3. From Mail Warn-Log: Code: spamd[2895]: dns: sendto() failed: Operation not permitted at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm line 395. From System-Log: Code: kernel: [ 27.570142] warning: `pure-ftpd-mysql' uses 32-bit capabilities (legacy support in use) Are these to worry about? I searched Google and the forum, but did not find a solution. Edit: Sry, title should have said pure-ftpd
The first error message show that something is blocking the dns connection. Try to disable Firewall and see if it goes away. Regarding the Pure-ftpd, if you are usin Virtual server like openvz, than you need to install Pure-ftpd without capabilities. See here how to do that: Pure-ftpd without capabilites.
Thank you for your reply. I have disabled the firewall now and rebooting. I'll see if the error shows up again. Regarding the pure-ftpd error; the server is run as a virtual machine on a vmware ESXi host. Would this be the same case?
Looks like the error is gone when disabling the firewall. Do I need to open up another port for this? This is what is got: TCP: 20,21,22,25,53,80,110,143,443,3306,8080,10000,40110:40210 UDP: 53,3306
Im running mine servers on ESXi as well and i don't have any issues. Maybe it is related to 64bit and 32bit OS.
I'm running x64 OS. I guess this is the reason for the pure-ftpd warning but I was not sure if I should obtain a x64 package for pure-ftpd-mysql that would run as 64bit (or compile myself).
Im not sure. I'm running Debian 64bit and my pure-ftpd installation was simple apt-get install of the pure-ftpd. I didin't do any special 64 bit installation of pure-ftpd. Regarding the other thing i found another thread with similiar problems: http://www.howtoforge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40490&page=2
I already tried the route alternative, but apparently it didn't solve the issue I followed the guide, that is. I'm not sure how to confirm that route is being used instead of iptables?
Did you use this tutorial? http://www.faqforge.com/linux/contr...ute-instead-of-iptables-to-block-connections/ Did you reboot your server afterwards (so that the server uses a "clean" firewall without any fail2ban rules)?
I used that tutorial and restarted the server. Following the tutorial, the lines told to insert is the only content in both of the files. Is that correct? Both files were empty/non-existent before beginning the tutorial.
That is correct. But it is a good idea to copy /etc/fail2ban/jail.conf to /etc/fail2ban/jail.local... Code: cp /etc/fail2ban/jail.conf /etc/fail2ban/jail.local ... and then adjust /etc/fail2ban/jail.local to your needs (including the banaction = route line in [DEFAULT]).
