There were definite diffs between my preserved sendmail.cf and the 'new' sendmail.cf.rpmnew. This implies changes needed to .mc meta file.On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 10:47, Sean Estabrooks wrote:On 02 Oct 2003 10:43:27 -0500 Bret Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 10:17, Sean Estabrooks wrote:On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:20:48 -0700 Mike Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Given that sendmail.cf is by most sane individuals generated via the file sendmail.mc, what is the impact of updating sendmail via rhnupdate when I only get a sendmail.cf.rpmnew instead of a sendmail.mc.rpmnew? Seems like I might be missing some crucial sendmail parms for security/etc. I certainly don't want to be backporting cf changes into an mc file. My sendmail book is like 3' thick...and I'm not worthy.Hi Mike, rhn up2date is based on rpm package management. rpm is pretty smart about upgrading your system. It knows what files are configuration files that have been modified by you. In order to preserve your changes it does not overwrite configuration files that you've changed. It will add the ".rpmnew" extension to the new file or save your current file with ".rpmsave". Either way it will ensure you don't lose work, but you may have to do some tweaking after the upgrade.Sean I think you missed his point. perhaps a better subject would be why did I not get a sendmail.mc.rpmnew or why did sendmail upgrade overwrite my sendmail.mc. If this happened then I suggest a bug report be filed. BretI didn't miss it i ignored it... here's one possibility: no change to senmail.mcYeah I just did an upgrade to my sendmail and my sendmail.mc was not changed even though it considered a part of sendmail package. I guess if a config file is not changed from the original then the file does not even get a sendmail.mc? I have done so little packaging that I am wondering what the mechanism is. Time to read the spec file in the source rpm I guess. Bret
I believe any changes should have been put into a sendmail.mc.rpmnew.
Given sendmail's hairiness, I would rather have seen the meta file changed rather than the generated file.
Like many of you, I have so much on my plate (cocoon, tomcat, php, sasl/pam/krb, blah blah), that whenever I don't need to spend an hour (or in the case of sendmail days?) on something I appreciate it. Sendmail is acknowleged by all/most for its complexity...many say unneeded.
Maybe I should just shutup, buckle down, and get more into raw sendmail configuration. It could still take some time to figure out how to backport a sendmail.cf change into sendmail.mc.
I'm actually quite surprised that this is happening, and I laud rpm/RedHat and what they've done. It seems to me it would've been easier for their engineers to roll any changes into .mc and have the user regenerate the .cf. Much easier...
For posterity, here is the diff of my sendmail.cf and sendmail.cf.rpmnew...some changes are trivial, others look more complex:
--------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mail]$ diff sendmail.cf sendmail.cf.rpmnew
19,21c19,21
< ##### built by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed Aug 6 12:36:28 PDT 2003
< ##### in /etc/mail
< ##### using /usr/share/sendmail-cf/ as configuration include directory
---
> ##### built by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed Sep 17 14:45:22 EDT 2003
> ##### in /usr/src/build/308253-i386/BUILD/sendmail-8.12.8/cf/cf
> ##### using ../ as configuration include directory
66,69d65
< ##### $Id: masquerade_envelope.m4,v 8.9 1999/02/07 07:26:10 gshapiro Exp $ #####
<
< ##### $Id: masquerade_entire_domain.m4,v 8.9 1999/02/07 07:26:10 gshapiro Exp $ #####
<
146,148c142,143
< C{w}vxappliance.com
< C{w}scifientology.com
< C{w}readingbetweenthelines.com
---
> C{w}localhost.localdomain
>
150,151d144
< # who I masquerade as (null for no masquerading) (see also $=M)
< DMvxappliance.com
270c263,264
< O DaemonPortOptions=Name=MTA
---
>
> O DaemonPortOptions=Port=smtp,Addr=127.0.0.1, Name=MTA
525c519
< O AuthOptions=A p
---
> O AuthOptions=A
707c701
< R$* < @ $* $=M > $* $: $1 < @ $2 $3 . > $4
---
> R$* < @ $=M > $* $: $1 < @ $2 . > $3
962,972c956
< # special case the users that should be exposed
< R$=E < @ *LOCAL* > $@ $1 < @ $j . > leave exposed
< R$=E < @ $* $=M . > $@ $1 < @ $2 $3 . >
< R$=E < @ $=w . > $@ $1 < @ $2 . >
<
< # handle domain-specific masquerading
< R$* < @ $* $=M . > $* $: $1 < @ $2 $3 . @ $M > $4 convert masqueraded doms
< R$* < @ $=w . > $* $: $1 < @ $2 . @ $M > $3
< R$* < @ *LOCAL* > $* $: $1 < @ $j . @ $M > $2
< R$* < @ $+ @ > $* $: $1 < @ $2 > $3 $M is null
< R$* < @ $+ @ $+ > $* $: $1 < @ $3 . > $4 $M is not null
---
> R$* < @ *LOCAL* > $@ $1 < @ $j . >
979c963
< R$+ $@ $>MasqHdr $1
---
> R$* < @ *LOCAL* > $* $: $1 < @ $j . > $2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mail]$
--------------------------------
thanks for all the responses...
mike
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
