Re: removing sendmail in OpenBSD
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:44:06AM +, Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote: [snip] Can anyone tell me which of the many sendmail files on my OpenBSD 2.9 system I should remove and which I should symlink to qmail/bin/sendmail? My system contains the following sendmail files: /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail This one can stay. chmod u-s it for security. /usr/bin/sendmail This one needs to become a symlink. Are you sure there is nothing in /usr/sbin/sendmail? /usr/share/sendmail This one can stay just fine. Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
Re: removing sendmail in OpenBSD
From: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail This one can stay. chmod u-s it for security. /usr/bin/sendmail This one needs to become a symlink. Ok. Are you sure there is nothing in /usr/sbin/sendmail? There is. Missed it. Should it be a symlink too? /usr/share/sendmail This one can stay just fine. Oops, it's a directory. Should have noticed that. So what is /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail? Jc _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: removing sendmail in OpenBSD
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:02:47PM +, Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote: [snip] Are you sure there is nothing in /usr/sbin/sendmail? There is. Missed it. Should it be a symlink too? Yes. /usr/share/sendmail This one can stay just fine. Oops, it's a directory. Should have noticed that. :) So what is /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail? That is (at least on FreeBSD, so don't hate me if it's different on OpenBSD :) the actual sendmail binary. /usr/bin/sendmail and /usr/sbin/sendmail are just symlinks to mailwrapper, which then invokes /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail for you, or for example qmail's sendmail wrapper, if configured as such in /etc/mail/mailer.conf. mailwrapper is, however, unreliable, which is why you should just use symlinks. Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
Re: removing sendmail in OpenBSD
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:02:47PM +, Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote: From: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you sure there is nothing in /usr/sbin/sendmail? There is. Missed it. Should it be a symlink too? yes. So what is /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail? The actual sendmail binary. The others are just symlinks to mailwrapper which calls sendmail then (or another MTA, defined in /etc/mailer.conf). -- * Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de * * Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany * Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: removing sendmail in OpenBSD
On 9, Aug, 2001 at 02:06:28PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote: On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:02:47PM +, Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote: [snip] Are you sure there is nothing in /usr/sbin/sendmail? There is. Missed it. Should it be a symlink too? On my OpenBSD CURRENT machine there's no /usr/bin/sendmail, only one in /usr/sbin. I don't think you have one in /usr/bin, surprise me! ;-) So what is /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail? That is (at least on FreeBSD, so don't hate me if it's different on OpenBSD :) the actual sendmail binary. /usr/bin/sendmail and /usr/sbin/sendmail are just symlinks to mailwrapper, which then invokes /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail for you, or for example qmail's sendmail wrapper, if configured as such in /etc/mail/mailer.conf. mailwrapper is, however, unreliable, which is why you should just use symlinks. This is news to me, I've been using mailwrapper (e.g. /etc/mailer.conf) instead. What's so bad about mailwrapper? -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html Yeah, free sex really hurts the economy and innovation. Where can i *buy* a sex license? (I don't like stealing, you know). :-) Regards Morten -- ×·.¸¸.·´¨)¸.·´ ¸.·´¨) OMorten Liebach [EMAIL PROTECTED] (_¸.·´ (¸.·´ ¸.·× 0http://home1.stofanet.dk/liebach/ (_¸.·´ohttp://pc89225.stofanet.dk/ .
Re: removing sendmail in OpenBSD
Hello. Going through the qmail installation instruction is lwq. Section 2.8.3 describes how to remove sendmail. At the end of the section it says I must create some symlinks for the old sendmail to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail. However the instructions give locations for sendmail that don't quite work on my system. Well you found the files. So you know what to do. If not read on. (strangely enough the qmail/doc/REMOVE.sendmail doesn't mention the need for any symlinks ... are they really needed?) Yes ! You have read the rest of the instructions, haven`t you ? ie. INSTALL..that`s where the links happen. Can anyone tell me which of the many sendmail files on my OpenBSD 2.9 system I should remove and which I should symlink to qmail/bin/sendmail? My system contains the following sendmail files: /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail /usr/bin/sendmail /usr/share/sendmail Just do this... mv /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail.old mv /usr/bin/sendmail /usr/bin/sendmail.old chmod 0 /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail.old /usr/bin/sendmail.old ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/bin What does this all mean ?? First you are renaming the files with .old names so you can always go back easily but programs won`t find them anymore. The chmod 0 is to remove the setuid bit to prevent local users from getting extra privilidges through sendmails security holes. The ln -s links the old sendmail location to qmail`s sendmail wrapper. This is so programs expecting to use sendmail at it`s default location will be diverted to qmails mimicking wrapper. Thanks! Jc Regards...Martin
Re: removing sendmail in OpenBSD
Follow-up. My system contains the following sendmail files: /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail /usr/bin/sendmail /usr/share/sendmail You sure about /usr/bin/sendmail ? On my OpenBSD v2.8 it was /usr/sbin/sendmail Which results in :- mv /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail.old mv /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/sbin/sendmail.old chmod 0 /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail.old /usr/sbin/sendmail.old ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/sbin Regards...martin
Re: removing sendmail in OpenBSD
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 02:33:47PM +0200, Morten Liebach wrote: [snip] This is news to me, I've been using mailwrapper (e.g. /etc/mailer.conf) instead. What's so bad about mailwrapper? It invokes the real sendmail when it gets in any kind of trouble. A fix for this is in a FreeBSD PR that hasn't been committed to the STABLE branch yet. It is also untested right now. Don't expect it to be fixed in the near future. Yeah, free sex really hurts the economy and innovation. Where can i *buy* a sex license? (I don't like stealing, you know). :-) Oh I don't know, I always just do that illegally :) Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
