Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's ugly, but try adding:
>
> 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 localhost
> localhost.localdomain
That actually "fixed" it, but maybe for the wrong reason. I restarted
my sendmail daemons for no good reason after changin
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
[...]
> From my personal experience, DSL and cable modems are also transient
> connections. 8-(.
I've had real good service from both (in a hardware sense -- but
at every "change of state" (initiated by me), their people wo
Gregory Neil Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> swear> BTW, I was suprised to find several help files only under /usr/src
> swear> and the Sendmail Installation and Operation only under that and not
> swear> yet built from the source "op.me". (PR worthy?)
>
> op.me is built and installed in /
Hi,
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 12:47:29 -0800
> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tlambert2> The FreeBSD library bug is that the /etc/hosts file entry:
tlambert2> ::1
tlambert2> is not canonized before being compared, for the reverse lookup.
No, it does. I've tested it with foll
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
> > You're kludge breaks as soon as the submitting machine is not the
> > server machine (i.e. you start making MSP connections over your
> > local network).
>
> My ISP charges more for an Internet-connected LAN and I have no need for
> one, so I don't bother. This bri
Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote:
> The latest FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE /etc/namedb/named.conf contains:
>
> // RFC 3152
> zone "1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA" {
> type master;
> file "localhost-v6.rev";
> };
>
> // RFC 1886 -- deprecated
> zone "1.0
[Dang; I meant to move this thread to -questions only, not -current.]
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ There is a genuine FreeBSD bug or two at the root of your problem ]
>
> "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
>
> > BTW, I was suprised to find several help files only
> > under /usr/src a
swear> BTW, I was suprised to find several help files only under /usr/src
swear> and the Sendmail Installation and Operation only under that and not
swear> yet built from the source "op.me". (PR worthy?)
op.me is built and installed in /usr/share/doc/smm/08.sendmailop/.
cf/README is installed as
[ There is a genuine FreeBSD bug or two at the root of your problem ]
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
> I guess you're saying IPv6 is a "sendmail" default and not a OS default;
> "ping localhost" says it's pinging "127.0.0.1", not "::1".
Ping is ICMP echo datagrams; it requires a different ping for
I
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The book is pretty useless. The reason the fix you are using
> works is because you have an IPv6 connection by default, and by
> explicitly specifying an IPv4 address, IPv4 is used.
>
> The issue here is the .in-addr.arpa. delegation for localhost
> is
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
> Thanks. I tried that and some other things (eg service.switch). Even
> read the book and help files some more. Terry's suggestion regarding
> "expensive" seemed like the opposite of what I needed (I was trying to
> keep the msg out of the queues) and I had no luck t
(cc'd to -questions, where I first post my problem, with no luck)
Valentin Nechayev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fix it with:
> define(`confDIRECT_SUBMISSION_MODIFIERS',`CC u')dnl
> For now I has no such problem at my home machine.
> Yes, this solution isn't intuitive.
Thanks. I tried that a
Claus Assmann wrote:
> > If it's a bug that needs to be fixed, it's a bug in the host OS,
> > and not something that sendmail can address.
>
> So your claim is wrong. You can't use the mailuser account to raise
> your priviledges to root.
What did you want me to do, enumerate all possible methods
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Claus Assmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Claus Assmann wrote:
> > > > What can you do with smmsp group access?
> >
> > > Send tons of SPAM. Execute code as mailuser to raise my priviledge
> > > to root, and then execute
Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Claus Assmann wrote:
> > > What can you do with smmsp group access?
>
> > Send tons of SPAM. Execute code as mailuser to raise my priviledge
> > to root, and then execute code as root.
>
> > 8-).
>
> Show me a way to do the l
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Claus Assmann wrote:
> > What can you do with smmsp group access?
> Send tons of SPAM. Execute code as mailuser to raise my priviledge
> to root, and then execute code as root.
> 8-).
Show me a way to do the latter. If you can do that, then it's
a b
Claus Assmann wrote:
> There is no magic, this is plain and simple good engineering
> standard: you need multiple layers of security. You have to
> minimize the impact of any mistake that can happen.
I understand the principle. Air bags in a car make sense, since
they can help you survive a crash
Valentin Nechayev wrote:
> Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 21:39:33, tlambert2 (Terry Lambert) wrote about "Re: 5.0-RC2
>informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay":
>
> TL> It's an editorial complaint. I don't like the breaking the
> TL> program into seperate programs b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If there are problems, the authors would like to hear
> > > about it directly, instead of reading it in some mailing
> > > list by accident...
> >
> > It's an editorial complaint. I don't like the breaking the
> > program into seperate programs by function. IMO, DJB
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Claus Assmann wrote:
> It's an editorial complaint. I don't like the breaking the
> program into seperate programs by function. IMO, DJB is wrong,
> and this does nothing to enhance security. The result of doing
> this in FreeBSD has been to greatly
Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 21:39:33, tlambert2 (Terry Lambert) wrote about "Re: 5.0-RC2
informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay":
TL> It's an editorial complaint. I don't like the breaking the
TL> program into seperate programs by function. IMO, DJB is wrong,
TL> and
> > If there are problems, the authors would like to hear
> > about it directly, instead of reading it in some mailing
> > list by accident...
>
> It's an editorial complaint. I don't like the breaking the
> program into seperate programs by function. IMO, DJB is wrong,
> and this does nothing t
Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > I'm not too happy about some of the changes to Sendmail recently,
>
> Which? And why?
>
> If there are problems, the authors would like to hear
> about it directly, instead of reading it in some mailing
> list by accident...
I
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> I'm not too happy about some of the changes to Sendmail recently,
Which? And why?
If there are problems, the authors would like to hear
about it directly, instead of reading it in some mailing
list by accident...
> but I understand, from a marketing
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
>
> I've got sendmail configured exactly the same (AFAIK) as my working 4.7
> system, with rc.conf having sendmail_enable="NO" (only) just to allow
> me to send mail via my ISP using the "smart host" feature.
Set HoldExpensive, and make sure the SMTP mailer is marked a
25 matches
Mail list logo
