On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:51:17PM +0200, Kevin McNamee wrote: > >First off, for those replying privately: please don't do that. [...]
> Just now, I had to click "Reply all" to get the mailing list into
> the recipient list. Is the mailing list configured to "Reply to
> list" as the default reply option?
No, and it never will be. If you actually care about why, see the end
of this message. But first I'd rather solve your problem than get
bogged down in political meta-philosophical BS.
> > rssh -v
>
> rssh 2.3.2
> Copyright 2002-5 Derek D. Martin <rssh-discuss at lists dot sourceforge
> dot net>
>
> rssh config file = /usr/local/etc/rssh.conf
> chroot helper path = /usr/local/libexec/rssh_chroot_helper
> scp binary path = /usr/bin
> sftp server binary = /usr/bin
OK, so this looks to be your problem. It appears that you've told
rssh that your scp binary is "/usr/bin", which is a directory. That's
not going to work. Presumably you should tell it to use
"/usr/bin/scp" instead... or don't tell it anything -- it should
(usually) find the binary on its own and use it. Likewise for your
sftp-server path. I don't know how you installed your OpenSSH
installation, and if it's a Solaris-specific package I don't know
where they put the sftp-server binary, but otherwise I highly doubt
the binary is in /usr/bin. OpenSSH usually tries to install it in
something like $prefix/libexec or $prefix/lib somewhere...
On a typical (Linux) installation, rssh -v looks like this:
$ ./rssh -v
rssh 2.3.2
Copyright 2002-5 Derek D. Martin <rssh-discuss at lists dot sourceforge dot net>
rssh config file = /usr/local/etc/rssh.conf
chroot helper path = /usr/local/libexec/rssh_chroot_helper
scp binary path = /usr/bin/scp
sftp server binary = /usr/libexec/openssh/sftp-server
cvs binary path = /usr/bin/cvs
rdist binary path = /usr/bin/rdist
rsync binary path = /usr/bin/rsync
You'll need to figure out where any Solaris-specific binaries are and
specify the full path to them on your configure command line, but in
general the output should look something like the above. Normally the
configure script finds things, but if it can't, you need to specify.
That may be the case with your scp and sftp-server binaries, if you
didn't incorrectly specify paths of /usr/bin.
Lastly, just a note in advance: It sounds like you intend to use this
in a chroot environment. I haven't touched Solaris in about 8 years,
and I didn't develop rssh with Solaris in mind... It just so happens
that Solaris is sufficiently POSIX-compliant that people have been
able to get rssh to work there... I'm not one of those people. If
your script doesn't work, or you just can't get rssh working in the
jail, and you haven't just made some obvious configuration mistake, I
can't help you. Though there are (or were) a number of people lurking
who use Solaris, so hopefully one of them can.
[End of useful answer]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Now, for those still reading, who care about the reply-to munging
question...
[This is not directed at you specifically, or anyone in particular,
though it is being lobbed like a stink bomb in the general direction
of anyone who thinks reply-to munging is a good idea. I've tried to
keep the flame factor to a minimum, but it's a hot-button topic for
me.]
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The paragraph entitled "It Makes Things Break" is the critical one
here. The "Principle of Least Surprise/Damage" and "Coddling the
Brain-Dead, Penalizing the Conscientious" sections are also favorites
of mine, although every point made in this essay is spot on, factually
true and logically correct. My favorite quote from the essay: "In
case you are wondering, yes, I once thought Reply-To munging was a
nifty idea. I got better though." =8^)
Another point the author misses is that many modern mailers (mutt,
sylpheed, [I believe] balsa, etc.) also have features that make
replying directly to a subscribed mailing list EXTREMELY easy (i.e. a
single key stroke, once you've told it what mailing lists you've
subscribed to), so for sensible people choosing to use sensible
mailers, reply-to munging is completely unnecessary, and as mentioned
in the article this practice causes other desirable features to break.
Reply-to munging is cruel and unusual punnishment for people who are
trying to do things the right way. People who insist on using broken
mailers get what they deserve, by and large.
And if you were wondering, "My company makes me use Outlook" (or some
other standards-ignorant, brain-dead mailer) is a lame excuse. Your
company doesn't control what mailer you run at home, and no one said
you need to post to mailing lists from work. In fact, doing so is
probably a bad idea... it's been known to get people sued and/or
fired. "I run Windows at home" is also a lame excuse. Some or all of
the afforementioned mailers work in Windows as well as on Unix, and
Mozilla Thunderbird, which has a nice, friendly GUI interface, and
which most definitely runs on Windows, has an extension that provides
the same feature. For that matter, while it's certainly possible,
in most cases it's doubtful that your company could stop you from
installing a reasonable mailer on your work PC to use your home accout
with... And often, even MS-Estrange admins provide IMAP as an option,
or can be pursuaded to.
There is ALWAYS a choice.
And yes, I do prefer that people keep discussions on the list, but I
prefer even more that I shouldn't have to hold anyone's hand, or break
people's mailers, to make it happen.
A final word of courtesy, to save some of you (and hopefully me) some
wasted effort: if you are thinking about replying to argue the other
side of the reply-to munging issue, don't bother. I probably won't
read it, and I certainly won't reply. Trying to convince me otherwise
is a waste of your time. It's not that I'm so arrogant (although I
am), or that I'm too closed-minded to consider your opinion... It's
simply that this is a very old argument that I've already spent way
too much time thinking about, and you can't possibly add anything
(relevant) to the discussion that I haven't already considered. The
arguments in favor of header munging are well-known, largely
irrelevant, and often just plain wrong (i.e. the supporting "facts"
put forward in defense of the points made are incorrect). The
discussion crops up all over the net, on a fairly regular basis for
probably at least the last 8 years or so; and if you really need to
see it hashed out for you, by all means read the essay I linked to,
and if that's not enough google it. If you're STILL not convinced,
it's probably because you're using one of those brain-dead mailers,
and don't know what you're missing. Lots of people have had lots to
say about it, and I've already wasted far too much time discussing it,
here and elsewhere, over the course of what seems like eternity.
--
Derek D. Martin
http://www.pizzashack.org/
GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
pgpMz8vMhsrjE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________ rssh-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rssh-discuss
