On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 05:20:27PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:07:48AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> > bash" value?
>
> I don't really want to get into it at the moment, but imagine hacking
>
At 5:01 PM -0700 2001-04-24, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:38:01PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> And UNIX on a phone is pure overkill.
>
>Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
http://www.agendacomputing.com/ (not that the reviews have been very kind)
--
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:07:48AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> bash" value?
I don't really want to get into it at the moment, but imagine hacking
netfilter without lugging a laptop around. PDA's are sleek and cool,
and
> > Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
> What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> bash" value?
It means I can do anything on my ipaq I can do anywhere else. I can run
multiple apps at a time. I can run X11. I can run the palm emulator even ;)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 05:01:18PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:38:01PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > And UNIX on a phone is pure overkill.
>
> Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:38:01PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> And UNIX on a phone is pure overkill.
Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
>
> But, what I should say to the network security, is that AFAIK in the most
> of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
> <1024? Is there any
> that also explain why win95 user doesn't want to use NT. not
> because they can't afford it (belive me, here NT costs only
> us$2), but additional headache isn't acceptable.
I'm going to speak from experience:
My mother, who is the biggest windoze fan on the face of the universe, got
fed up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> hi,
>
> a friend of my asked me on how to make linux easier to use
> for personal/casual win user.
>
>
> from that, i also found out that it is very awkward to type
> username and password every time i use my computer.
> so here's a patch.
Neet hack, but maybe the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:44:17PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> come on, it's hard for me as it's hard for you. not everybody
> expect a computer to be like people here thinks how a computer
> should be.
I'm sorry, you're looking at the problem the wrong way around.
Its not a kernel
Hello,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> > as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for this to happen
> > sendmail needs to start it as that user in step 3 and to do that it
> > needs extra privs, above and
> And get_mail must have elevated privileges to search for the users mail...
> or sendmail must have already switched user on reciept to put it in the
> users inbox which also requires privleges...
No. Think instead of blindly following existing implementation
socket(AF_UNIX,
"Thinking out of the box," you don't need to modify the kernel or the
userland utilities to make Linux automatically launch a dedicated terminal
for embedded applications. All you need to do is look at the file
/etc/inittab and read the man pages for this file. For console access, you
- Received message begins Here -
>
> > 1. email -> sendmail
> > 2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
> ...
>
> > Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> > as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for
> think about personal devices. something like the nokia communicator.
> a system security passwd is acceptable, but that's it. no those-
> device-user would like to know about user account, file ownership,
> etc. they just want to use it.
If you are making a personal device, like an
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:53:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 1. email -> sendmail
> > 2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
> ...
>
> > Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> > as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for.
> 1. email -> sendmail
> 2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
...
> Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for this to happen
> sendmail needs to start it as that user in step 3
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, CaT wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanoff wrote:
> > > use port 2525 as SMTP port in your MTA. I've succeed to setup such a
> > > configuration.
> >
> > This requires you to ensure that your MTA is started first on that
> > port...Might be
Alan Cox wrote:
> > so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
> > is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
>
> Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
>
> > surely mortals expect midori to behave like their pc. lets say
> > on redhat,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:59:28PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> What is this gid mail crap ? You don't need priviledge. You get the mail by
> asking the daemon for it. procmail needs no priviledge either if it is done
> right.
>
> You just need to think about the security models in the right way.
Tomas Telensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
> >
> > > of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> > > root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
> > >
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanoff wrote:
> > use port 2525 as SMTP port in your MTA. I've succeed to setup such a
> > configuration.
>
> This requires you to ensure that your MTA is started first on that
> port...Might be difficult to achieve reliably in an automatic
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanoff wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> >
> > Or even without xinetd. Just use local port forwarding eg 2525 -> 25, and
>
> This is more like 25 -> 2525 :-)
OK, that was a hard night for me, I need some
> I've always found the root < 1024 to be quite limmited and find myself
> wishing I could assign permissions based on ip/port.
Its been done. Search for 'sockfs' I believe it was called.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Le 25 Apr 2001 00:06:57 +1000, Daniel Stone a écrit :
> > problem is you guys are to unix-centric, try to be user-centric a little.
>
> We're too UNIX-centric, yet you're the one trying to put UNIX on a phone?
> Come on ...
Hey ! We already put uClinux on a phone ! Full-fledge linux is not
> > Copying spool articles matching the peercred to the client does not
>
> Running procmail as the user who is to receive the email for local mail
> delivery as running it with gid mail (for eg) would allow one user to
> modify another's mail.
What is this gid mail crap ? You don't need
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > > Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
> > ... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
>
> Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
> And that you shouldn't drop the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:37:34PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
>
> DNS lookup does not
> Spooling to disk does not
> Accepting a connection from a client does not
> Doing peercred auth with a client does not
>
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gábor Lénárt wrote:
>
> Or even without xinetd. Just use local port forwarding eg 2525 -> 25, and
This is more like 25 -> 2525 :-)
> use port 2525 as SMTP port in your MTA. I've succeed to setup such a
> configuration.
This requires you to ensure that your
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > It is possible to implement the entire mail system without anything running
> > > as root but xinetd.
> >
> > You want an MDA with elevated privileges, though...
^
> What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
.forward
> > It is possible to implement the entire mail system without anything running
> > as root but xinetd.
>
> You want an MDA with elevated privileges, though...
What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
DNS lookup does not
Spooling to disk does not
Accepting
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:18:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > > Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
> > ... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
>
> Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
> And that you
> > Even my digital tv box has multiple users. The fact you cannot figure out how
> > to make your UI present that to the end user in a suitable manner is not
> > the kernels problem. Get a real UI designer
>
> if it's useful, it's okay. if not, what is it doing there?
For one it allowing you
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Even my digital tv box has multiple users. The fact you cannot figure out how
>> to make your UI present that to the end user in a suitable manner is not
>> the kernels problem. Get a real UI designer
>
>if it's useful, it's okay. if not, what is
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > > Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
> > ... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
>
> Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
> And that you shouldn't drop the
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
> ... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
And that you shouldn't drop the capabilities except that bind
It is possible to
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 09:04:02PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
What's with all these blank lines? Everywhere!
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Aah. I see. Where was this? I never saw it.
>
> psst, it's a proto.
Right-o. In the news, you say. Hrm.
> > That may be so,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
> > is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
>
> Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
sigh. is that mean the little thing had to do capable() check
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
> Thanks for the comment. And why not just let it listen to 25 and then
> being run as uid=nobody, gid=mail?
Handling of .forward, for one thing. Or pipe aliases, or...
None of this stuff is unsolvable (e.g. handling of .forward belongs to
MDA, not
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Aah. I see. Where was this? I never saw it.
psst, it's a proto.
> That may be so, so hack up your own OS. It's a MOBILE PHONE, it needs to be
> absolutely *rock solid*. Look at the 5110, that's just about perfect. The
> 7110, on the other hand ...
> so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
> is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
> surely mortals expect midori to behave like their pc. lets say
> on redhat, they have to login as root to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
>
> > of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> > root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
> > <1024? Is there any elegant solution?
>
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Roland Seuhs wrote:
>> with multi-user concept, conceptually there should be an
>> administrator to create account, grant permission, etc.
>> no my sister doesn't want that. i bet there are billions of
>> people not willing to learn how to use a computer, they just
>> want
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> okay, it wouldn't cost me. but it surely easier if everybody used
> linux, so i could put my ext2 disk everywhere i want.
>
> hey, it's obvious that it's not for a server!
> i try to point out a problem for people not on this list, don't
> work
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:27:56PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hence, Microsoft Windows. It might not be stable, it might not be fast, it
> > might not do RAID, packet-filtering and SQL, but it does a job. A simple
> > job. To give Mum & Dad(tm)
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
> of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
> <1024? Is there any elegant solution?
Sendmail is old. Consider it as a remnant of times when
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> You are on the wrong list. You don't modify the kernel to make
> a "single-user" machine. You modify the password file in /etc/passwd.
> Until you know, and completely understand this, you will be laughed at.
>
> When an interactive process is
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
> :-) Great.
> You and Alex are right - I agree that this is a complete moronism.
>
> But, what I should say to the network security, is that AFAIK in the most
> of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> root! Having
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hence, Microsoft Windows. It might not be stable, it might not be fast, it
> might not do RAID, packet-filtering and SQL, but it does a job. A simple
> job. To give Mum & Dad(tm) (with apologies to maddog) a chance to use a
> computer.
>
>
> Since
>
> trustix.co.id? hehehe.
>
> If you don't want to login with user/password, then change your
> password to "". Don't want to even do that? Then just change
> /etc/inittab to invoke "login -f username" instead of mingetty or
> whatever. No need at all to hack the kernel up.
>
> Dunno
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > What, makes it hard to write viruses for it? Awww, poor skr1pt k1dd13z...
[SNIPPED..]
>
> > > And would that "use" by any chance include access to network? >
>
> >
> > So let him log in as root,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> Sounds to me like you really don't get the whole concept of permissions
> and that it's how Unix works.
>
> Besides, why should the kernel do anythign different for you when there
> are userland tools that
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2001 14:44 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > So let him log in as root, do everything as root and be cracked
> > like a bloody moron he is. Next?
>
> come on, it's hard for me as it's hard for you. not everybody
> expect a computer
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:44:17PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> with multi-user concept, conceptually there should be an
> administrator to create account, grant permission, etc.
> no my sister doesn't want that. i bet there are billions of
> people not willing to learn how to use a
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip long wankage]
Equivalent of your "patch" can be achieved by making login(1) and
friends let everyone in as root without asking password. End of
story. If you don't understand even _that_ - you don't understand
the bloody basics of the system
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:44:17PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > What, makes it hard to write viruses for it? Awww, poor skr1pt k1dd13z...
> >
> > And would that "use" by any chance include access to network?
> >
> > So let him log in as root,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>a friend of my asked me on how to make linux easier to use
>for personal/casual win user.
>
>i found out that one of the big problem with linux and most
>other operating system is the multi-user thing.
>
>i think, no personal computer user should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> a friend of my asked me on how to make linux easier to use
> for personal/casual win user.
>
> i found out that one of the big problem with linux and most
> other operating system is the multi-user thing.
>
> i think, no personal computer user should know
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> What, makes it hard to write viruses for it? Awww, poor skr1pt k1dd13z...
>
>
> And would that "use" by any chance include access to network?
>
>
> So let him log in as root, do everything as root and be cracked
> like a bloody moron he is. Next?
>
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> a friend of my asked me on how to make linux easier to use
> for personal/casual win user.
>
> i found out that one of the big problem with linux and most
> other operating system is the multi-user thing.
What, makes it hard to write viruses for
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aaron Lehmann did have cause to say:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:07:48AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
What real value does it have, apart from the geek look at me, I'm using
bash value?
I don't really want to get into it at the moment, but imagine hacking
netfilter
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a friend of my asked me on how to make linux easier to use
for personal/casual win user.
i found out that one of the big problem with linux and most
other operating system is the multi-user thing.
What, makes it hard to write viruses for it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi,
a friend of my asked me on how to make linux easier to use
for personal/casual win user.
i found out that one of the big problem with linux and most
other operating system is the multi-user thing.
i think, no personal computer user should know about
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a friend of my asked me on how to make linux easier to use
for personal/casual win user.
i found out that one of the big problem with linux and most
other operating system is the multi-user thing.
i think, no personal computer user should know about
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:44:17PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
What, makes it hard to write viruses for it? Awww, poor skr1pt k1dd13z...
And would that use by any chance include access to network?
So let him log in as root, do everything
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip long wankage]
Equivalent of your patch can be achieved by making login(1) and
friends let everyone in as root without asking password. End of
story. If you don't understand even _that_ - you don't understand
the bloody basics of the system
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2001 14:44 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
So let him log in as root, do everything as root and be cracked
like a bloody moron he is. Next?
come on, it's hard for me as it's hard for you. not everybody
expect a computer to be
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Sounds to me like you really don't get the whole concept of permissions
and that it's how Unix works.
Besides, why should the kernel do anythign different for you when there
are userland tools that you can
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hence, Microsoft Windows. It might not be stable, it might not be fast, it
might not do RAID, packet-filtering and SQL, but it does a job. A simple
job. To give Mum Dad(tm) (with apologies to maddog) a chance to use a
computer.
Since when, did
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
:-) Great.
You and Alex are right - I agree that this is a complete moronism.
But, what I should say to the network security, is that AFAIK in the most
of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
root! Having
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
You are on the wrong list. You don't modify the kernel to make
a single-user machine. You modify the password file in /etc/passwd.
Until you know, and completely understand this, you will be laughed at.
When an interactive process is started,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:27:56PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hence, Microsoft Windows. It might not be stable, it might not be fast, it
might not do RAID, packet-filtering and SQL, but it does a job. A simple
job. To give Mum Dad(tm) (with
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
1024? Is there any elegant solution?
Sendmail is old. Consider it as a remnant of times when network
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
Correct. 1024 requires root to bind to the port.
... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay, it wouldn't cost me. but it surely easier if everybody used
linux, so i could put my ext2 disk everywhere i want.
hey, it's obvious that it's not for a server!
i try to point out a problem for people not on this list, don't
work around that
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Roland Seuhs wrote:
with multi-user concept, conceptually there should be an
administrator to create account, grant permission, etc.
no my sister doesn't want that. i bet there are billions of
people not willing to learn how to use a computer, they just
want to use it.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
1024? Is there any elegant solution?
Sendmail
so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
surely mortals expect midori to behave like their pc. lets say
on redhat, they have to login as root to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
Aah. I see. Where was this? I never saw it.
psst, it's a proto.
That may be so, so hack up your own OS. It's a MOBILE PHONE, it needs to be
absolutely *rock solid*. Look at the 5110, that's just about perfect. The
7110, on the other hand ...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
Thanks for the comment. And why not just let it listen to 25 and then
being run as uid=nobody, gid=mail?
Handling of .forward, for one thing. Or pipe aliases, or...
None of this stuff is unsolvable (e.g. handling of .forward belongs to
MDA, not
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
sigh. is that mean the little thing had to do capable() check
each
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
Correct. 1024 requires root to bind to the port.
... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
And that you shouldn't drop the capabilities except that bind
It is possible to implement
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
Correct. 1024 requires root to bind to the port.
... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
And that you shouldn't drop the capabilities
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even my digital tv box has multiple users. The fact you cannot figure out how
to make your UI present that to the end user in a suitable manner is not
the kernels problem. Get a real UI designer
if it's useful, it's okay. if not, what is it doing
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:18:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
Correct. 1024 requires root to bind to the port.
... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
And that you shouldn't
Even my digital tv box has multiple users. The fact you cannot figure out how
to make your UI present that to the end user in a suitable manner is not
the kernels problem. Get a real UI designer
if it's useful, it's okay. if not, what is it doing there?
For one it allowing you to build
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
It is possible to implement the entire mail system without anything running
as root but xinetd.
You want an MDA with elevated privileges, though...
^
What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
.forward handling may,
It is possible to implement the entire mail system without anything running
as root but xinetd.
You want an MDA with elevated privileges, though...
What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
DNS lookup does not
Spooling to disk does not
Accepting a
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gábor Lénárt wrote:
Or even without xinetd. Just use local port forwarding eg 2525 - 25, and
This is more like 25 - 2525 :-)
use port 2525 as SMTP port in your MTA. I've succeed to setup such a
configuration.
This requires you to ensure that your MTA
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
Correct. 1024 requires root to bind to the port.
... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
And that you shouldn't drop the capabilities
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:37:34PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
DNS lookup does not
Spooling to disk does not
Accepting a connection from a client does not
Doing peercred auth with a client does not
Copying
Copying spool articles matching the peercred to the client does not
Running procmail as the user who is to receive the email for local mail
delivery as running it with gid mail (for eg) would allow one user to
modify another's mail.
What is this gid mail crap ? You don't need
I've always found the root 1024 to be quite limmited and find myself
wishing I could assign permissions based on ip/port.
Its been done. Search for 'sockfs' I believe it was called.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Le 25 Apr 2001 00:06:57 +1000, Daniel Stone a écrit :
problem is you guys are to unix-centric, try to be user-centric a little.
We're too UNIX-centric, yet you're the one trying to put UNIX on a phone?
Come on ...
Hey ! We already put uClinux on a phone ! Full-fledge linux is not far,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanoff wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gbor Lnrt wrote:
Or even without xinetd. Just use local port forwarding eg 2525 - 25, and
This is more like 25 - 2525 :-)
OK, that was a hard night for me, I need some sleep :)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanoff wrote:
use port 2525 as SMTP port in your MTA. I've succeed to setup such a
configuration.
This requires you to ensure that your MTA is started first on that
port...Might be difficult to achieve reliably in an automatic way
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:59:28PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
What is this gid mail crap ? You don't need priviledge. You get the mail by
asking the daemon for it. procmail needs no priviledge either if it is done
right.
You just need to think about the security models in the right way. Linux
Alan Cox wrote:
so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
surely mortals expect midori to behave like their pc. lets say
on redhat, they have to
Tomas Telensky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
1024? Is there
101 - 200 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
