Some time around Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:21:08 +1000,
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Scott Ellis wrote:
> > No, you're not hiding this on the bug tracking system any more.
>
> Neither are you.
>
> > The reason that sendmail broke is that you made a DELIBERATE modification
> > to procmail that sendmail wasn't expecting. While I agree that sendmail
>
> That's just simply true. If you have a short memory, let me remind you that
> sendmail's default MDA in bo is, surprise deliver. So it is perfectly
> reasonable to have procmail not setuid on a bo system, which is what I did.
I've been semi-following this thread from the beginning. Maybe it's just me,
but the fact that this happened during a bo->hamm upgrade only became clear to
me now. Before, I had the perception that you turned off setuid bit on
procmail at some point when your system was already hamm.
This does make it a release-critical bug. I am sure there are more than a few
people out there who have procmail running without the setuid bit. This bug
will break sendmail on upgrade for every one of them, and there is also high
potential for mail loss. I urge the sendmail maintainer to reconsider his
position.
--
Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation....
Igor Grobman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
