Both postmaster and mailer-daemon seem to have some amount of historical
precedent.
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Smith writes:
: If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
: "mailman" might be a start. Or "mailperson",
Both postmaster and mailer-daemon seem to have some amount of historical
precedent.
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
In message 199909012256.paa01...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
: mailman might be a start.
At the risk of being flamed for my inexperience...
I caught the thread here more or less because it was a conspicuous mess on my
list (and thanks to the flamers with the name suggestions, even longer). I still
think that something good could be done here that of course would cause a little
work,
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:34:22 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
It was the adding a new user/group just for the sake of adding a new
user/group that bothered many of us. ;)
I've learned to accept that argument on principle is inevitable.
:-)
Later,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:34:22 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
It was the adding a new user/group just for the sake of adding a new
user/group that bothered many of us. ;)
I've learned to accept that argument on principle is inevitable.
:-)
Later,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
* From: Tim Vanderhoek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* differences are 1) entries in inetd.conf are sample entries only, 2)
* ports have no way of adding those entries to inetd.conf themselves
* (since touching /etc is illegal).
Uh, you're contradicting yourself. Touching /etc is not illegal.
* 2)
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 09:29:49PM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Mike Smith:
If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
"mailman" might be a start. Or "mailperson", or "postperson", or
whatever. "mta" just feels a little obscure.
"smtp", the
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:41:28 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
Sendmail likes mailnull and sendmail. :-)
Later,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
-Original Message-
From: Josef Karthauser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 September 1999 10:41
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
I vote for 'Pat' and any other mail software could use 'Jess'.
Rich
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:49:35AM +0100, Wood, Richard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Josef Karthauser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 September 1999 10:41
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 01:10:32AM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
differences are 1) entries in inetd.conf are sample entries only, 2)
ports have no way of adding those entries to inetd.conf themselves
(since touching /etc is illegal).
Uh, you're contradicting yourself.
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The numeric ID is not important. Neither is the name. So long as there's
something that people maintaining ports can use. I've followed Solaris'
lead on the choice of name, ``smtp''.
Hmm. One of my Solaris boxen has
mail:x:6:6:Unprivileged mail user:/:
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:12:13 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
mail:x:6:6:Unprivileged mail user:/:
smtp:x:0:0:Mail Daemon User:/:
(Presumably the smtp user is privileged in order to bind to port 25.)
I prefer user group mail since it is non-cryptic and common.
Well, this isn't what we'd want
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 12:01:11AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
Hah! Try "mcfeely" for obscure and descriptive. Much better than the
much-maligned "newman" or the out-of-date "cliffy".
And "mcfeely" has connotations of rapid dispatching of mail, which the
other two certainly do not.
--
On 03-Sep-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Perhaps the objections were raised because I didn't say I wanted to
sandbox Sendmail. I've looked through my sent mail and I can see that
I
didn't say anything about it in my initial mail. That's unfortunate.
If you sandbox sendmail, then it makes sense
Warner Losh wrote:
In message 199909012256.paa01...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
: mailman might be a start. Or mailperson, or postperson, or
: whatever. mta just feels a little obscure.
postmanpete
which is
* From: Tim Vanderhoek vand...@ecf.utoronto.ca
* differences are 1) entries in inetd.conf are sample entries only, 2)
* ports have no way of adding those entries to inetd.conf themselves
* (since touching /etc is illegal).
Uh, you're contradicting yourself. Touching /etc is not illegal.
*
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 09:29:49PM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Mike Smith:
If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
mailman might be a start. Or mailperson, or postperson, or
whatever. mta just feels a little obscure.
smtp, the first proposal
-Original Message-
From: Josef Karthauser [mailto:j...@pavilion.net]
Sent: 03 September 1999 10:41
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
I vote for 'Pat' and any other mail software could use 'Jess'.
Rich
--
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:41:28 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
Sendmail likes mailnull and sendmail. :-)
Later,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:49:35AM +0100, Wood, Richard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Josef Karthauser [mailto:j...@pavilion.net]
Sent: 03 September 1999 10:41
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:49:35AM +0100, Wood, Richard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Josef Karthauser [mailto:j...@pavilion.net]
Sent: 03 September 1999 10:41
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 01:10:32AM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
differences are 1) entries in inetd.conf are sample entries only, 2)
ports have no way of adding those entries to inetd.conf themselves
(since touching /etc is illegal).
Uh, you're contradicting yourself.
Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za wrote:
The numeric ID is not important. Neither is the name. So long as there's
something that people maintaining ports can use. I've followed Solaris'
lead on the choice of name, ``smtp''.
Hmm. One of my Solaris boxen has
mail:x:6:6:Unprivileged mail user:/:
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:12:13 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
mail:x:6:6:Unprivileged mail user:/:
smtp:x:0:0:Mail Daemon User:/:
(Presumably the smtp user is privileged in order to bind to port 25.)
I prefer user group mail since it is non-cryptic and common.
Well, this isn't what we'd want if
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 12:01:11AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
Hah! Try mcfeely for obscure and descriptive. Much better than the
much-maligned newman or the out-of-date cliffy.
And mcfeely has connotations of rapid dispatching of mail, which the
other two certainly do not.
--
Matthew Hunt
Josef Karthauser wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 09:29:49PM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Mike Smith:
If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
mailman might be a start. Or mailperson, or postperson, or
whatever. mta just feels a little
Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 12:01:11AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
Hah! Try mcfeely for obscure and descriptive. Much better than the
much-maligned newman or the out-of-date cliffy.
And mcfeely has connotations of rapid dispatching of mail, which the
other two certainly
On 03-Sep-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Perhaps the objections were raised because I didn't say I wanted to
sandbox Sendmail. I've looked through my sent mail and I can see that
I
didn't say anything about it in my initial mail. That's unfortunate.
If you sandbox sendmail, then it makes sense that
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:48:59 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
Will ports adapt easily to this?
Yes. Those that already try to work around the absence of a reserved
user will have to do less work. Those that run priveledged will be
easier to transition to a non-priveledged state.
Having ports
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:35:59 MST, Aaron Smith wrote:
this strikes me as unecessary. anybody installing a new mta can create the
necessary users and name them appropriately.
This argument would get sysinstall removed from the release -- you can
do without it when you're installing FreeBSD.
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 01:32:59 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
May I vote for NO more predefined uids/gids at all?
This isn't about voting. It's about discussion. Emotional arguments and
matters of personal preference aren't helpful.
I think there are already too many of them. If you get out of
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:39:28 +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
BTW I'd still see Postfix standard in FreeBSD :-)
Please don't hijack my thread. I don't want my request to get lost in
another flame war about this. If you must bring that up, please do so
under a different subject line.
:-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sheldon Hearn) writes:
Actually, not. The postfix and exim ports, at least, would be taught to
use the new UID when it became available in STABLE. I'm pretty sure
smail and others would follow suit. Remember, _we_ control the ports and
can have packages install for
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 11:42:58AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The numeric ID is not important. Neither is the name. So long as there's
something that people maintaining ports can use. I've followed Solaris'
lead on the choice of name, ``smtp''.
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:42:56 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
I _do_ know that, if machines across the network need to know about
magical IDs on their peers, then it's
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:08:45 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
3) We try to keep the ports system roughly independent of the base
system, and vice-a-versa. Do you plan to make sendmail use this new
mta id (is that even possible?)?
It's certainly something I'd like to take a shot at, yes.
On 02-Sep-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:42:56 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
Time to learn. The uid/guid is only stored as a number, and this
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 04:37:11PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
It's certainly something I'd like to take a shot at, yes. Perhaps I'm
going about this the wrong way. Perhaps I should first provide a knob
that allows sendmail to be run non-priveledged. Once that's done, add a
user for it to
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 11:06:41 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
And then once that new user has had considerable time to settle, rip
all the user/group stuff from the mta ports and change them to use an
arbitrary user/group that defaults to whatever you added for sendmail.
My intention was never
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:42:56 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
I _do_ know that, if machines across the network need to know about
magical IDs
According to Mike Smith:
If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
"mailman" might be a start. Or "mailperson", or "postperson", or
whatever. "mta" just feels a little obscure.
"smtp", the first proposal is a better idea then. "mailman" (like it is used
on hub)
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD.
I'd support this. I think the GID should be 25 as well.
David Wolfskill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the overall idea is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
:- Emotional arguments and matters of personal preference aren't
:- helpful.
The only emotional argumentation seems to be yours.
A "technical" objection was made that it seems best for ports to create
whatever resources they need, and not polute base distribution with
Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Smith writes:
: If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
: "mailman" might be a start. Or "mailperson", or "postperson", or
: whatever. "mta" just feels a little obscure.
postmanpete
which is both
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:48:59 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
Will ports adapt easily to this?
Yes. Those that already try to work around the absence of a reserved
user will have to do less work. Those that run priveledged will be
easier to transition to a non-priveledged state.
Having ports
In message 199909012256.paa01...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
: mailman might be a start. Or mailperson, or postperson, or
: whatever. mta just feels a little obscure.
postmanpete
which is both obscure and
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:35:59 MST, Aaron Smith wrote:
this strikes me as unecessary. anybody installing a new mta can create the
necessary users and name them appropriately.
This argument would get sysinstall removed from the release -- you can
do without it when you're installing FreeBSD.
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 01:32:59 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
May I vote for NO more predefined uids/gids at all?
This isn't about voting. It's about discussion. Emotional arguments and
matters of personal preference aren't helpful.
I think there are already too many of them. If you get out of a
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:39:28 +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
BTW I'd still see Postfix standard in FreeBSD :-)
Please don't hijack my thread. I don't want my request to get lost in
another flame war about this. If you must bring that up, please do so
under a different subject line.
:-)
sheld...@uunet.co.za (Sheldon Hearn) writes:
Actually, not. The postfix and exim ports, at least, would be taught to
use the new UID when it became available in STABLE. I'm pretty sure
smail and others would follow suit. Remember, _we_ control the ports and
can have packages install for
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 11:42:58AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The numeric ID is not important. Neither is the name. So long as there's
something that people maintaining ports can use. I've followed Solaris'
lead on the choice of name, ``smtp''.
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:42:56 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
I _do_ know that, if machines across the network need to know about
magical IDs on their peers, then it's
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 16:01:40 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
I've educated myself and now see your point. :-)
The point, though, is now simply that we should strive to
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 10:01:55AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
OTOH, I can see that having a common user:group would be useful and
make some things easier, too.
And that's all I want -- to make things easier. :-)
I don't think you should add usernames/groups to the base system
just for
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:08:45 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
3) We try to keep the ports system roughly independent of the base
system, and vice-a-versa. Do you plan to make sendmail use this new
mta id (is that even possible?)?
It's certainly something I'd like to take a shot at, yes.
On 02-Sep-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:42:56 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
Time to learn. The uid/guid is only stored as a number, and this
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 04:37:11PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
It's certainly something I'd like to take a shot at, yes. Perhaps I'm
going about this the wrong way. Perhaps I should first provide a knob
that allows sendmail to be run non-priveledged. Once that's done, add a
user for it to
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 11:06:41 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
And then once that new user has had considerable time to settle, rip
all the user/group stuff from the mta ports and change them to use an
arbitrary user/group that defaults to whatever you added for sendmail.
My intention was never
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:42:56 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
I _do_ know that, if machines across the network need to know about
magical IDs on
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:10:34 MST, Doug wrote:
Please understand, this is not a personal attack.
Nope, you're quite good with wording your mail. :-)
I'm sure that your proposal was motivated by good intentions, but
those of us who see the harm in it and understand the issues involved
According to Mike Smith:
If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
mailman might be a start. Or mailperson, or postperson, or
whatever. mta just feels a little obscure.
smtp, the first proposal is a better idea then. mailman (like it is used
on hub) is more for a
Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za wrote:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD.
I'd support this. I think the GID should be 25 as well.
David Wolfskill d...@whistle.com wrote:
I think the overall idea is
sheld...@uunet.co.za said:
:- Emotional arguments and matters of personal preference aren't
:- helpful.
The only emotional argumentation seems to be yours.
A technical objection was made that it seems best for ports to create
whatever resources they need, and not polute base distribution with
Hi folks,
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
The last time I brought this up, my request was blown away in a flurry
of arguments
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sheldon Hearn writes:
: This has nothing to do with what's in the base system. This has to do
: with making it easier for people to run 3rd-party software, which isn't
: part of the base system, in a non-priveledged state.
I think this is a good idea. Plesae don't
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Hi folks,
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
Why not do this as part of the
From: Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 18:33:06 +0200
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
...
This has nothing to
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
Why not do
Why not do this as part of the port itself, ala majordomo? That
works just fine and is completely non-controversial because you don't get
it unless you ask for it.
I would just liek to point out that Postfix is also doing the exact same
thing ... user postfix ... (as well as a
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Nick Hibma wrote:
Why not do this as part of the port itself, ala majordomo? That
works just fine and is completely non-controversial because you don't get
it unless you ask for it.
I would just liek to point out that Postfix is also doing the exact same
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 10:51:10PM +0200, Pascal Hofstee wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily
According to Sheldon Hearn:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
What about "mta", a name that was suggested (and used on hub I think)
According to Sheldon Hearn:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
What about "mta", a name that was suggested (and used on hub I
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 03:56:10PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
"mailman" might be a start. Or "mailperson", or "postperson", or
whatever. "mta" just feels a little obscure.
May I vote for NO more predefined uids/gids at all?
this strikes me as unecessary. anybody installing a new mta can create the
necessary users and name them appropriately.
port maintainers have already solved this problem (see the install glue
for the qmail port, which as has been mentioned creates _seven_ users.) it is
not particularly hard, and
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 03:16:48PM -0700, Doug wrote:
It's not a stupid question at all. There is already such a utility
in the majordomo port, perhaps make this its own port and add that as a
dependency? We've already been told that postfix (one of the favorite
replacement MTA's for
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 12:39:28AM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Sheldon Hearn:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 08:27:38AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
Another data point: qmail adds _seven_ new users, and one new
group. It has a very paranoid security model.
I think that it uses a script to add them, but maybe I did it
myself. It was a while ago...
The qmail port uses a
Hi folks,
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
The last time I brought this up, my request was blown away in a flurry
of arguments
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 06:33:06PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Hi folks,
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
This sounds quite
In message 17825.936203...@axl.noc.iafrica.com Sheldon Hearn writes:
: This has nothing to do with what's in the base system. This has to do
: with making it easier for people to run 3rd-party software, which isn't
: part of the base system, in a non-priveledged state.
I think this is a good
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Hi folks,
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
Why not do this as part of the
From: Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 18:33:06 +0200
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
...
This has nothing
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
Why not do
Why not do this as part of the port itself, ala majordomo? That
works just fine and is completely non-controversial because you don't get
it unless you ask for it.
I would just liek to point out that Postfix is also doing the exact same
thing ... user postfix ... (as well as a
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Nick Hibma wrote:
Why not do this as part of the port itself, ala majordomo? That
works just fine and is completely non-controversial because you don't get
it unless you ask for it.
I would just liek to point out that Postfix is also doing the exact same
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 10:51:10PM +0200, Pascal Hofstee wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily
According to Sheldon Hearn:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
What about mta, a name that was suggested (and used on hub I think) by
According to Sheldon Hearn:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
What about mta, a name that was suggested (and used on hub I
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 03:56:10PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
If we do this, I hope a more obvious name is chosen; something like
mailman might be a start. Or mailperson, or postperson, or
whatever. mta just feels a little obscure.
May I vote for NO more predefined uids/gids at all?
I think
this strikes me as unecessary. anybody installing a new mta can create the
necessary users and name them appropriately.
port maintainers have already solved this problem (see the install glue
for the qmail port, which as has been mentioned creates _seven_ users.) it is
not particularly hard, and
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 03:16:48PM -0700, Doug wrote:
It's not a stupid question at all. There is already such a utility
in the majordomo port, perhaps make this its own port and add that as a
dependency? We've already been told that postfix (one of the favorite
replacement MTA's for
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 12:39:28AM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Sheldon Hearn:
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 08:27:38AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
Another data point: qmail adds _seven_ new users, and one new
group. It has a very paranoid security model.
I think that it uses a script to add them, but maybe I did it
myself. It was a while ago...
The qmail port uses a
95 matches
Mail list logo
