On 8/7/2009, Mark Sapiro (m...@msapiro.net) wrote:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>
>> However, in this case, I was assuming that Mark simply took you at
>> your word that mailmanctl lives in /bin,
> Exactly.
Ok, but... well, I didn't exactly say that, but yes, that was what the
command in questio
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
>However, in this case, I was assuming that Mark simply took you at
>your word that mailmanctl lives in /bin,
Exactly.
--
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
---
I'm sorry, I missed the OP and can't at the moment check the archives...
On Aug 7, 2009, at 5:44 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
However, in this case, I was assuming that Mark simply took you at
your word that mailmanctl lives in /bin, not in something like
/usr/lib/mailman/bin (which is where
On 8/7/2009 5:44 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>> (There's no good reason for *any* mailman program to be on anybody's
>>> PATH, so yes, just having /bin/mailmanctl makes your installation
>>> nonstandard.)
>> Hmmm... Mark didn't seem to agree... he said:
> First, if you're sure you know why Ma
tansta...@libertytrek.org writes:
> On 8/2/2009, Stephen J. Turnbull (step...@xemacs.org) wrote:
> > (There's no good reason for *any* mailman program to be on anybody's
> > PATH, so yes, just having /bin/mailmanctl makes your installation
> > nonstandard.)
>
> Hmmm... Mark didn't seem to a
On 8/2/2009, Stephen J. Turnbull (step...@xemacs.org) wrote:
> (There's no good reason for *any* mailman program to be on anybody's
> PATH, so yes, just having /bin/mailmanctl makes your installation
> nonstandard.)
Hmmm... Mark didn't seem to agree... he said:
> Your init script should just cont
On 8/2/2009 10:05 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> This is the real issue. mailmanctl should always be run by root. Your
> init script should just contain
>
> /bin/mailmanctl -s start >/dev/null 2>&1
>
> without the su - mailman
Ok, I tried this, but it did the same thing... however, I tried
something e
On 8/2/2009, Mark Sapiro (m...@msapiro.net) wrote:
> This is the real issue. mailmanctl should always be run by root.
Hmmm... ok, thanks.
So, on linux, when an init script runs at startup, it runs as root?
> Your init script should just contain
>
> /bin/mailmanctl -s start >/dev/null 2>&1
>
>
On 8/2/2009 5:13 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> It's not supposed to work. mailman privileges should only be
> accessible by the system administrator, ie, someone who has the root
> password.
Ah, ok, that makes sense...
> It's not a problem with the password for the mailman user. :-)
>
> The
tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
>
>Is the mailman user supposed to be passwordless?
It doesn't matter. It's up to you and your own policy.
>I know I'm running a non vanilla version, but my question is mostly
>generic I think...
>
>Currently, the init script contains:
>
>su - mailman -c '/bin/m
tansta...@libertytrek.org writes:
> Is the mailman user supposed to be passwordless?
AFAIK there is no need to log in as the mailman user, so that user
should have no password (in the sense of "disabled", not in the sense
of "zero-length string").
> When I do this from a non-root account:
>
Hello,
I'm still trying to fix a problem I've had for a long time (started
after an update) where mailman won't start from the standard init
script. I think I have finally figured out what the problem is, but
wanted to ask...
Is the mailman user supposed to be passwordless?
I know I'm running a
12 matches
Mail list logo
