Source: sendmail
Version: 8.18.1-5
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20240728 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/bin/ld: /
Your message dated Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:05:16 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1067412: fixed in sendmail 8.18.1-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #1067412,
regarding sendmail: Add DANE compile time option
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
(Closes: #1059386):
sendmail allowed SMTP smuggling in certain configurations.
Remote attackers can use a published exploitation
technique to inject e-mail messages with a spoofed
MAIL FROM address, allowing bypass of an SPF protection
mechanism. This occurs because sendmail
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bookworm
X-Debbugs-Cc: sendm...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:sendmail
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
[ Reason ]
sendmail was affected by CVE-2023-51765
[ Impact ]
close CVE-2023-51765 and reject NUL
Your message dated Mon, 13 May 2024 16:49:55 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1070190: fixed in sendmail 8.18.1-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1070190,
regarding sendmail-bin: CVE-2023-51765 SMTP smuggling with NUL followup
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Le samedi 4 mai 2024, 12:40:25 UTC Andreas Beckmann a écrit :
> On 04/05/2024 13.02, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> >> I have patched sendmail in order to enable O RejectNUL=True directive,
> >> but I do not achieved the fact to enable it by default.
>
> >> Andre
On 04/05/2024 13.02, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I have patched sendmail in order to enable O RejectNUL=True directive,
but I do not achieved the fact to enable it by default.
Andreas could you get a glimpse at how to render RejectNUL a default ?
Second attempt. Completely untested
On 01/05/2024 16.14, Bastien Roucariès wrote:
Dear Maintainer,
unfortunately sendmail is orphaned ...
CVE-2023-51765 is not fully fixed at least for forwarding bad mail.
We must reject NUL including mail as a stop gap method.
I have patched sendmail in order to enable O RejectNUL=True
Package: sendmail-bin
Severity: important
Tags: security help
Forwarded: https://marc.info/?l=oss-security=171447187004229=2
Dear Maintainer,
CVE-2023-51765 is not fully fixed at least for forwarding bad mail.
We must reject NUL including mail as a stop gap method.
I have patched sendmail
sendmail 8.18.1-1 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2024-05-09
It is affected by these RC bugs:
1066420: sendmail: FTBFS: ./debian/./debian/conftest.c:37:(.text.startup+0xb):
undefined reference to `__res_query'
https://bugs.debian.org/1066420
This mail is generated by:
https
sendmail 8.18.1-1 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2024-05-09
It is affected by these RC bugs:
1066420: sendmail: FTBFS: ./debian/./debian/conftest.c:37:(.text.startup+0xb):
undefined reference to `__res_query'
https://bugs.debian.org/1066420
This mail is generated by:
https
Package: sendmail
Version: 8.18.1-2
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
can you include the compile time option -DDANE in an experimental build?
That enables DANE support in the compiled binary. Although, DANE must be
enabled in the .mc confiuration if needed, so it should not affect users who
Your message dated Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:36:05 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1066420: fixed in sendmail 8.18.1-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1066420,
regarding sendmail: FTBFS: ./debian/./debian/conftest.c:37:(.text.startup+0xb):
undefined reference to `__res_query'
to be marked
Am 13.03.2024 um 13:05:34 Uhr schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> Source: sendmail
> Version: 8.18.1-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS
> Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
> User: lu...@debian.org
configure: failed program was:
| /* confdefs.h */
| #define PACKAGE_NAME "Sendmail&quo
Source: sendmail
Version: 8.18.1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20240313 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/bin/ld: /
Your message dated Mon, 15 Jan 2024 13:05:25 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1039365: fixed in sendmail 8.18.0.2-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1039365,
regarding sendmail: ships sysv-init script without systemd unit
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Mon, 15 Jan 2024 13:05:25 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1059386: fixed in sendmail 8.18.0.2-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1059386,
regarding sendmail: CVE-2023-51765
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Source: sendmail
Version: 8.17.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: security upstream
X-Debbugs-Cc: car...@debian.org, Debian Security Team
Hi,
The following vulnerability was published for sendmail.
CVE-2023-51765[0]:
| sendmail through at least 8.14.7 allows SMTP smuggling in certain
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: ftp.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: remove
X-Debbugs-Cc: dhis-mx-sendmail-eng...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:dhis-mx-sendmail-engine
Dear ftpmasters,
please remove dhis-mx-sendmail-engine, which blocks removal of
dhis
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:13:07 + Alain Knaff
wrote:
> Package: sendmail-base
> Version: 8.17.1.9-2
>
> As far as I understood, since Debian 12, isc-dhcp-client is
> considered obsolete, and dhcpcd is recommended instead.
>
> However, dhcpcd appears to be slightly sl
These are files that run the sendmailconfig script from a native unit,
although only tested with a very basic configuration.
I haven't checked the DEB scripts, so maybe changes are also needed
there.
sendmail.tar
Description: Unix tar archive
Package: sendmail-base
Version: 8.17.2-1
Severity: normal
User: bi...@debian.org
Usertags: nm-hook-scripts
Hi,
NetworkManager provides a service named NetworkManager-dispatcher
[1], which executes scripts in
/{etc,usr/lib}/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d upon (network) state
changes
ybe these are
> > >> helpful here:
> > >> https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/sendmail/sendmail/fedora-rawhide.html#files
> > >
> > > Is anybody here working on that issue?
> >
> > As sendmail has no maintainer in Debian, I'm afraid this is not
Hi,
while trying to enable (outgoing) DANE in sendmail I stumbled upon the
issue that sendmail might not have been compiled with DANE support.
Inserting: define(`confDANE',`true') into my sendmail.mc resulted in the
error message: NOQUEUE: SYSERR(root): /etc/mail/sendmail.cf: line 640:
readcf
Hi,
while trying to enable (outgoing) DANE in sendmail I stumbled upon the
issue that sendmail might not have been compiled with DANE support.
Inserting: define(`confDANE',`true') into my sendmail.mc resulted in the
error message: NOQUEUE: SYSERR(root): /etc/mail/sendmail.cf: line 640:
readcf
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:07:52 +0200 Andreas Beckmann
wrote:
> On 30/07/2023 20.46, Marco wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:28:22 + Marco wrote:
> >> Fedora has some systemd unit files included, maybe these are
> >> helpful here:
> >> https://packages.fedo
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 23:41:32 +0200
Source: dhis-mx-sendmail-engine
Architecture: source
Version: 5.0-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian QA Group
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-5_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-5.dsc
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-5.debian.tar.xz
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-5_source.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host
Your message dated Mon, 07 Aug 2023 21:49:30 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#969749: fixed in dhis-mx-sendmail-engine 5.0-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #969749,
regarding dhis-mx-sendmail-engine FTCBFS: strips with the build architecture
strip
to be marked as done.
This means
Am 02.08.2023 um 18:26:01 Uhr schrieb Andreas Beckmann:
> Maybe we could introduce a sendmail-systemd package to allow running
> sendmail "the modern way" without breaking "the classic way".
> We probably need to split the sendmail-bin and sendmail-base pa
On 31/07/2023 08.52, Marco wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:46:11 + Marco wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:28:22 + Marco wrote:
Fedora has some systemd unit files included, maybe these are helpful
here:
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/sendmail/sendmail/fedora-rawhide.html#files
On 30/07/2023 20.46, Marco wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:28:22 + Marco wrote:
Fedora has some systemd unit files included, maybe these are helpful
here:
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/sendmail/sendmail/fedora-rawhide.html#files
Is anybody here working on that issue
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:46:11 + Marco wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:28:22 + Marco wrote:
> > Fedora has some systemd unit files included, maybe these are helpful
> > here:
> > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/sendmail/sendmail/fedora-rawhide.html#files
Package: sendmail-base
Version: 8.17.1.9-2
Hi,
As far as I understood, since Debian 12, isc-dhcp-client is considered
obsolete, and dhcpcd is recommended instead.
However, dhcpcd appears to be slightly slower, with the result that on
startup sendmail sees an empty /etc/resolv.conf file
Package: sendmail
Severity: important
User: bl...@debian.org
Usertags: missing-systemd-service
Dear Maintainer(s),
sendmail has been flagged by Lintian as shipping a sysv-init script
without a corresponding systemd unit file. The default init system in
Debian is systemd, and so far this worked
Package: sendmail-bin
Version: 8.15.2-22
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
It seems to be a pretty big security issue that there is no coherent
reporting/logging
of failed auth login attempts when using saslauthd with sendmail.
The saslauthd log lines for failed auth attempts are similar
Package: sendmail-bin
Severity: wishlist
Version: 8.15.2-22
User: pkg-systemd-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: systemd-units
Dear sendmail Maintainers and QA Uploaders,
sendmail-bin today ships an /etc/init.d/sendmail script, of
considerable size. It would be great if it could also
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 08:47:01 -0300
Source: dhis-mx-sendmail-engine
Architecture: source
Version: 5.0-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian QA Group
Changed-By: Marcos Talau
Changes:
dhis-mx
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-4_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-4.dsc
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-4.diff.gz
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-4_source.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-4.dsc has incorrect size; deleting it
dhis-mx-sendmail-engine_5.0-4_source.buildinfo has incorrect size; deleting it
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Your message dated Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:32:32 +0200
with message-id <4708d58b-edd2-da44-fcdc-09ae3960e...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: sendmail: french package description contains duplicated
text
has caused the Debian Bug report #1020771,
regarding sendmail: french package descr
Le 26/09/2022 à 20:17, Yvan Masson a écrit :
Le 26/09/2022 à 19:09, Andreas Beckmann a écrit :
Hi Yvan,
thanks for spotting this issue.
On 26/09/2022 13.59, Yvan Masson wrote:
I had a quick look on https://salsa.debian.org/debian/sendmail but
could not find where is stored this translation
Le 26/09/2022 à 19:09, Andreas Beckmann a écrit :
Hi Yvan,
thanks for spotting this issue.
On 26/09/2022 13.59, Yvan Masson wrote:
I had a quick look on https://salsa.debian.org/debian/sendmail but
could not find where is stored this translation: for my general
knowledge, could you tell me
Hi Yvan,
thanks for spotting this issue.
On 26/09/2022 13.59, Yvan Masson wrote:
I had a quick look on https://salsa.debian.org/debian/sendmail but could
not find where is stored this translation: for my general knowledge,
could you tell me where it is?
These translations are not part
Package: sendmail
Severity: minor
Version: 8.17.1.9-1
Dear maintainers,
I am using current testing, with french locale. sendmail’s package
description returned by `apt show sendmail` contains duplicated text:
…
.
Ce paquet prend en charge REGEX, DB, NIS, NIS+, LDAP, DNS maps, et active
TCP
sendmail 8.16.1-3 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2022-06-30
It (build-)depends on packages with these RC bugs:
1011146: nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-470: CVE-2022-28181, CVE-2022-28183,
CVE-2022-28184, CVE-2022-28185, CVE-2022-28191, CVE-2022-28192
https://bugs.debian.org/1011146
Your message dated Sun, 15 May 2022 14:58:55 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1006574: fixed in sendmail 8.17.1-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1006574,
regarding sendmail: FTBFS with OpenSSL 3.0
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Source: sendmail
Version: 8.16.1-2
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
| gcc -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/<>=. -fstack-protector-strong
-W
Your message dated Fri, 27 Aug 2021 12:07:36 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#993075: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-23
has caused the Debian Bug report #993075,
regarding sendmail: FTBFS due to RPC removal from glibc
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Package: sendmail-bin
Version: 8.15.2-22
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
it delays the system load, or just waits for something, for circa 2 minutes.
Here's the journalctl log:
июл 30 15:53:05 localhost systemd[1]: Starting LSB: powerful, efficient, and
scalable Mail Transport Agent...
июл
Processing control commands:
> fixed -1 8.16.1-1
Bug #991331 [src:sendmail] sendmail: CVE-2021-3618
Marked as fixed in versions sendmail/8.16.1-1.
> tag -1 + help
Bug #991331 [src:sendmail] sendmail: CVE-2021-3618
Added tag(s) help.
--
991331: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.c
Control: fixed -1 8.16.1-1
Control: tag -1 + help
On 20/07/2021 22.21, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
https://alpaca-attack.com/ affects sendmail. It was fixed in
the latest 3.16.1 release:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975623#c13
Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2021-06-29 05:11:36 UTC
Source: sendmail
X-Debbugs-CC: t...@security.debian.org
Severity: important
Tags: security
Hi,
The following vulnerability was published for sendmail.
https://alpaca-attack.com/ affects sendmail. It was fixed in
the latest 3.16.1 release:
https://marc.info/?l=sendmail-announce=159394546814125=2
Package: sendmail
Version: 8.15.2-14~deb10u1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I noticed that we have mail bouncing exactly the same second we are running
'makemap'
on the virtual-domains database.
I am able to reproduce this by running the following bash-loop (with a real
username
Fix uploaded, please take care of an unblock if you think this should be
in bullseye.
Andreas
Your message dated Wed, 03 Mar 2021 11:50:13 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#983902: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-21
has caused the Debian Bug report #983902,
regarding sendmail: reproducible builds: embeds build path in site.config.m4
documentation files
to be marked as done.
This means
Source: sendmail
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: buildpath
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-b...@lists.alioth.debian.org
The build path is embedded in the site.config.m4 files shipped in the
documentation of sendmail-doc and sendmail-base
Hi Michael,
making the key group-readable seems to have done the trick.
Maybe its me, but I didn't expect that. I learned that the
key file should be readable by as few accounts as possible.
Thanx for the hint.
The problem is,though, sendmail doesn't tell.
I started to think that maybe adding
-r 1 root smmsp 1679 Jul 7 11:10 /etc/mail/private/mailhost.key.pem
I think the reason it’s not working is sendmail changes it’s effective uid to
smmta or smmsp (depending on whether its an mta or msp).
/etc/mail/private probably should be owned by smmta. And/or group readable
Package: sendmail
Version: 8.15.2-14~deb10u1
sendmail complains about an unsafe key file during starttls:
# grep STARTTLS=client /var/log/mail.log | grep Permission
Aug 11 13:10:33 srvvm01 sendmail[51615]: STARTTLS=client: file
/etc/mail/private/mailhost.key.pem unsafe: Permission denied
Aug
Your message dated Thu, 09 Jul 2020 18:32:26 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#894535: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-8+deb9u1
has caused the Debian Bug report #894535,
regarding sendmail: Typo in apt show sendmail
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Your message dated Thu, 09 Jul 2020 18:32:26 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#887064: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-8+deb9u1
has caused the Debian Bug report #887064,
regarding [sendmail] persistent queue runners in split daemon mode missed by
/etc/init.d/sendmail
to be marked as done
Your message dated Thu, 09 Jul 2020 18:32:26 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#873978: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-8+deb9u1
has caused the Debian Bug report #873978,
regarding sendmail-base: Please check for /usr/share/sendmail/dynamic before
sourcing it
to be marked as done.
This means
Source: sendmail
Version: 8.15.2-19
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20200620 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[2]: Entering direct
Your message dated Tue, 26 May 2020 00:18:49 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#961538: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-19
has caused the Debian Bug report #961538,
regarding /usr/lib/sm.bin/sendmail: IPv6 reverse-then-forward lookup broken,
possibly by glibc-2.30.patch
to be marked as done
Package: sendmail-bin
Version: 8.15.2-18
Severity: important
File: /usr/lib/sm.bin/sendmail
[ same as https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sendmail/+bug/1879738 ]
Dear Maintainer,
since USE_INET6 has been removed in glibc-2.30, sendmail fails to verify
IPv6 client addresses (reverse
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 upstream
Bug #949384 [sendmail] sendmail: milter expansion of "$b" macro is unreliable
Added tag(s) upstream.
> found -1 8.15.2-8
Bug #949384 [sendmail] sendmail: milter expansion of "$b" macro is unreliable
Marked as found in
Control: tag -1 upstream
Control: found -1 8.15.2-8
Hi Bjørn,
interesting problem.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:26:27 +0100 =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=
wrote:
> The bug is that sendmail returns sendmail process start time instead of
> current time when milters request the "$b" mac
Processing control commands:
> clone -1 -2
Bug #949370 [spamass-milter] spamass-milter: synthesized received header
sometimes use the sendmail start time instead of current time
Bug 949370 cloned as bug 949384
> reassign -2 sendmail
Bug #949384 [spamass-milter] spamass-milter: synth
I have created a QA upload with this patch and one for #945797, and
have sent a request for sponsorship to debian-mentors. If anyone here
wants to sponsor, I’d be very glad.
Cheers,
David
Forwarded Message
Subject: Bug#946965: RFS: sendmail/8.15.2-16 [QA] -- powerful
of the Sendmail::PMilter package
on CPAN.
I have made substantial changes to the package and I have released
development versions, the latest of which is here:
https://metacpan.org/release/GWHAYWOOD/Sendmail-PMilter-1.20_03
I have been using the development versions in production on very low
volume mail
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:34:41PM +0100, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
>
> I have changed _both_ values and I cannot connect to orange.fr or
> hotmail.com with sendmail. If I use stable package, sendmail runs as
> expected.
hotmail.com works with the default settings, it actually supp
smtp-in.orange.fr. [80.12.242.9], dsn=5.0.0,
>>>>>>> stat=Service unavailable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That server only seems to support TLS 1.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you read: /usr/share/doc/libssl1.1/NEWS.Debian.gz
>>
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 913129 sendmail
Bug #913129 [openssl] openssl: TLS error (error 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed
in sendmail logs)
Bug reassigned from package 'openssl' to 'sendmail'.
No longer marked as found in versions openssl/1.1.1-2.
Ignor
Your message dated Sat, 15 Sep 2018 22:34:15 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#894535: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-12
has caused the Debian Bug report #894535,
regarding sendmail: Typo in apt show sendmail
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Hello,
Since Debian team has removed some ciphers from OpenSSL, sendmail is
unable to send mails to domains that use old ciphers.
Sendmail team has committed a patch upstream to add :
FEATURE(`tls_failures', `8')
in sendmail.mc. After 8 TLS handshake failures, sendmail
Your message dated Sun, 8 Apr 2018 22:14:28 +0200
with message-id <20180408201426.oncza6pxltem2...@mikejones.breakpoint.cc>
and subject line Re: Bug#895082: sendmail: Please replace 'c_rehash' with
'openssl rehash'
has caused the Debian Bug report #895082,
regarding sendmail: Please r
On 2018-04-07 00:48, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Should the c_rehash script be mentioned in the source code or script
> of this package but is not used during the build process or in the
> final package then feel free to close the bug saying so.
The only occurrence I could find is in some
Source: sendmail
Version: 8.15.2-11
Severity: normal
Tags: sid buster
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: c_rehash
This package is using the c_rehash command which is part of the
openssl package. The c_rehash script is considered by upstream as a
fallback script
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #894535 [sendmail] sendmail: Typo in apt show sendmail
Added tag(s) pending.
--
894535: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=894535
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tag -1 pending
On 2018-04-01 05:24, annadane wrote:
> Paragraph "Fortunately, simple thing can be done easily, and complex things
> are possible, even if not easily understood ;) Sendmail is the *ONLY*
> MTA with a Turing complete language to control *ALL* aspec
Package: sendmail
Version: 8.15.2-8
Severity: minor
Dear Maintainer,
Paragraph "Fortunately, simple thing can be done easily, and complex things
are possible, even if not easily understood ;) Sendmail is the *ONLY*
MTA with a Turing complete language to control *ALL* aspects of del
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:49:16 +0100
Source: sendmail
Binary: sendmail-bin rmail sensible-mda libmilter1.0.1 libmilter-dev
sendmail-doc sendmail sendmail-base sendmail-cf
Architecture: source
Version: 8.15.2-11
Distribution: unstable
Your message dated Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:04:20 +
with message-id <e1eauqa-0001dx...@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#887064: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-10
has caused the Debian Bug report #887064,
regarding [sendmail] persistent queue runners in split daemon mode missed by
/etc/
Package: sendmail-bin
Version: 8.15.2-8
Tags: patch
When sendmail is configured with persistent queue runners *and* the
queue runner control process is separate from the main MTA daemon,
/etc/init.d/sendmail fails to find the queue runner control process and
deletes the pid file after startup
Your message dated Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:37:53 +
with message-id <e1drcjz-000crv...@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#873978: fixed in sendmail 8.15.2-9
has caused the Debian Bug report #873978,
regarding sendmail-base: Please check for /usr/share/sendmail/dynamic before
so
Package: sendmail-base
Version: 8.15.2-8
Severity: serious
I had sendmail installed. Then I removed it including sendmail-base. I
used "apt-get remove" instead of "purge" and this did not end well. The
log was quickly filled with this:
|Sep 1 21:28:02 debbuildd dhclien
Your message dated Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:54:29 +0200
with message-id <cb01f77e-1afe-baae-2b71-a942c1788...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#871498: Acknowledgement (sendmail: MILTER_CHUNK_SIZE
is too small for emails with large headers)
has caused the Debian Bug report #871498,
reg
Hi,
Sorry; I misunderstood. The MILTER_CHUNK limit with respect to headers
applies only to the size of an *individual* header, not the total header
size.
This bug may be closed, and sorry for the noise.
Regards,
Dianne.
Package: sendmail
Version: 8.15.2-8
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
Dear Maintainer,
Email headers are becoming larger and larger, and this Sendmail bug is starting
to hurt:
* milter communication fails if a single header
Package: sendmail-bin
Version: 8.14.4-4+deb7u1
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
Dear Maintainer,
*** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***
* What led up to the situation?
Running Sendmail as a production mail server for front-line processing
Your message dated Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:47:11 +
with message-id <e1cd2vh-000fbd...@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#841257: fixed in sendmail 8.14.4-8+deb8u2
has caused the Debian Bug report #841257,
regarding sendmail: Privilege escalation from group smmsp to (user) root
to be
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 07:11:27PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 16:46, Axel 'the C.L.A.' Müller wrote:
> > Seems to work fine - at least I'm not getting those mails anymore.
>
> I've now implemented a different way to aquire lockfiles for the
> cronjobs, let's hope that does
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 04:57:26PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2016-12-12 16:51, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> > Even in that case, IMHO it would be an idea to mark this bug as
> > "won't fix", or even to leave a line in the NEWS.debian, just in
> > case this version ever hits stable, as a hint
On 2016-12-12 16:51, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> Even in that case, IMHO it would be an idea to mark this bug as
> "won't fix", or even to leave a line in the NEWS.debian, just in
> case this version ever hits stable, as a hint for other CACert users
> (or someone with md5-signatures) out there.
A
; > Agreed. Unfortunately the other end of the connection is beyong
> > my control.
>
> You indicated that this was when receiving. That means either
> you're sending your certificates, or you've set up client
> authentication and both sides send certificates.
I would say my
MD5, while
> > the end certificate is with SHA512. I suggest you replace the CA
> > certs with newer ones.
>
> Sorry to say, I see things differently. It is about mails I
> receive, which means my sendmail MTA plays the TLS server role,
> and to my understanding, the
the intermedia "CAcert Class 3 Root" is with MD5, while
> the end certificate is with SHA512. I suggest you replace the CA
> certs with newer ones.
Sorry to say, I see things differently. It is about mails I
receive, which means my sendmail MTA plays the TLS server role,
and to my
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2016-12-11 11:22, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> > following testing after upgrading from 8.15.2-6 to 8.15.2-7,
> > sendmail does not accept certain incoming connections anymore
> > and refuses the STARTTLS hand
On 2016-12-11 11:22, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> following testing after upgrading from 8.15.2-6 to 8.15.2-7,
> sendmail does not accept certain incoming connections anymore
> and refuses the STARTTLS handshake with "ca md too weak".
That is probably because the -7 package got bu
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
