Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+remote\/multi\s+access\s+danger\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+remote\/multi\s+access\s+danger\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [BackupPC-users] remote/multi access danger? (score: 1): Author: gregwm <backuppc-users AT whitleymott DOT net>; Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:39:38 -0600; "pull" is fine for most circumstances, but i have an instance where "push" is the only option. assuming i don't run nightly or trashclean remotely, any danger in mounting the backuppc volume via ssh; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2010-12/msg00122.html (11,720 bytes)
2. Re: [BackupPC-users] remote/multi access danger? (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:09:41 -0600; That doesn't sound even close to being reasonable. How about running ssh with a port-forwarding tunnel that the server can use after the client originates the connection? Or perhaps a VPN like openvp; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2010-12/msg00123.html (12,089 bytes)
3. Re: [BackupPC-users] remote/multi access danger? (score: 1): Author: "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky" <backuppc AT kosowsky DOT org>; Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:52:18 -0500; Les Mikesell wrote at about 10:09:41 -0600 on Tuesday, December 14, 2010: Last time I checked 'sshfs' won't even work because it doesn't handle hard links properly. It only 'imitates' a filesystem -; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2010-12/msg00124.html (12,699 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]