Prev: Sendmail / Milter problem
Next: cyrus + smmapd without patching sendmail?
From: John Nemeth on 31 Jan 2008 11:04
Res (res(a)ausics.net) wrote:
: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Diggy wrote:

: > Bingo! Probably due to my own error somewhere along the line (this is
: > a new vm, but I should have known better), / was set to 777 rather

: a vm? anotehr important bit of info you neglected to mention first up

It's not important at all. As far as the operation of sendmail is
concerned, a vm isn't any different then a physical machine. And the
fact that it was a vm isn't even remotely important for the issue that
the OP was having.
From: John Nemeth on 1 Feb 2008 16:24
Res (res(a)ausics.net) wrote:
: On Thu, 30 Jan 2008, John Nemeth wrote:
: > Res (res(a)ausics.net) wrote:
: > : On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Diggy wrote:
: >
: > : > Bingo! Probably due to my own error somewhere along the line (this is
: > : > a new vm, but I should have known better), / was set to 777 rather
: >
: > : a vm? anotehr important bit of info you neglected to mention first up
: >
: > It's not important at all. As far as the operation of sendmail is
: > concerned, a vm isn't any different then a physical machine. And the

: bullshit it isnt, and if you stand by what you claim then you must be a

BS to you too!

: reseller, hint: most vm's have exploits, because of the way they interact

So, tell me, what's the difference between incorrectly setting
permissions on a physical disk and incorrectly setting permissions on a
virtual disk. Note that even without vms, disks can be virtual: NFS,
AFS, NAS, SAN, RAID, etc. sendmail was complaining about permissions
being incorrectly set. That was quite plain to anybody that has any
ammount of experience with sendmail. What might not be quite plain to
everybody is that sendmail checks the permissions of every directory
along the path, not just the final directory (i.e. it is rather
paranoid).
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Sendmail / Milter problem
Next: cyrus + smmapd without patching sendmail?