> I don't think that's right. As I understand it, the argv argument to
> execve() is passed-on directly as the child processes arguments, and
> the parent can write whatever it likes into argv[0] - it's only
> convention that it's a filename. So mailwrapper passes its own
> argv[0] as sendmail's a
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 15:48:11 -0500
Don Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 04 August 2007 15:13:34 RW wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:23:07 -0500
> >
> > What I didn't get was that when a binary is executed from execve(),
> > it's the parent program that sets the argv[0] seen by the c
On Saturday 04 August 2007 15:13:34 RW wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:23:07 -0500
>
> Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the last episode (Aug 04), RW said:
> > > mailwrapper checks to see how it was invoked and then looks up the
> > > appropriate command in mailer.conf. All of the entri
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:23:07 -0500
Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the last episode (Aug 04), RW said:
> > mailwrapper checks to see how it was invoked and then looks up the
> > appropriate command in mailer.conf. All of the entries in
> > mailer.conf point to /usr/libexec/sendmail/send
In the last episode (Aug 04), RW said:
> mailwrapper checks to see how it was invoked and then looks up the
> appropriate command in mailer.conf. All of the entries in
> mailer.conf point to /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail, so how does that
> binary know what it's supposed to do.
The kernel passes
On Saturday 04 August 2007 13:06:34 RW wrote:
> mailwrapper checks to see how it was invoked and then looks up the
> appropriate command in mailer.conf. All of the entries in mailer.conf
> point to /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail, so how does that binary know what
> it's supposed to do.
It checks
