On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Philip Guenther wrote:
I get your point that altering the base to make a port happier when it's
not a good idea in its own right seems wrong. Thus my labeling it a
workaround and not a fix.
IMO, the Right Thing is to have the port excise a chunk of the logic in
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
Any procmail users around?
I just use procmail in a minimal way, but I'm annoyed by the fact that
it creates mailbox group writable under /var/mail/. I don't see a reason
for it and it also makes
Hi.
Any procmail users around?
I just use procmail in a minimal way, but I'm annoyed by the fact that
it creates mailbox group writable under /var/mail/. I don't see a reason
for it and it also makes the security script complains about the perms.
Does anyone know of a reason why procmail would
On 2009/11/30 09:14, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
Hi.
Any procmail users around?
I just use procmail in a minimal way, but I'm annoyed by the fact that
it creates mailbox group writable under /var/mail/. I don't see a reason
for it and it also makes the security script complains about the
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
Any procmail users around?
I just use procmail in a minimal way, but I'm annoyed by the fact that
it creates mailbox group writable under /var/mail/. I don't see a reason
for it and it also makes the security script complains about the perms.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Philip Guenther guent...@sendmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
Any procmail users around?
I just use procmail in a minimal way, but I'm annoyed by the fact that
it creates mailbox group writable under /var/mail/. I don't see a reason
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, patrick keshishian wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Philip Guenther guent...@sendmail.com
wrote:
...
(So that's another possible workaround: change the group of the spool
to something that no one is a member of.)
I believe, that would cause security to
