Quoting Jancio Wodnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have got latest sendmail's update on my rh73 and rh9 boxes.
Issues are still the same: after update there is lack of those files:
After update from which version? Were any manual changes made those files
on the machine before the latest install? D
Quoting Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have volunteered some time for test if
I will assume you mean the second part of QA, the "verify" step.
(1) The changes can be "contained" so that they do not compromise
my machine if they fail. IOW, there is a guaranteed backout
which lose
I can confirm most of this info on my RH 9 and 7.3 systems as well. For me, it
was just user auth that appeared to be broken by this last package. The secure
cert setup that was part of the last bad-package-fix-effort didn't show any
direct errors, relaying from localhost worked fine, receivi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 22:07, NARS wrote:
>
>>If fedoralegacy supported FC1 for so long why to take fc2 out now? Try to
>>do a search on dedicated servers providers, you will find most of them
>>still provide FC2, and for eg.
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 12:50 -0400, Adam Gibson wrote:
> One thing I noticed after the latest yum update of sendmail from the
> previous update is that alternatives is broken for /etc/pam.d/smtp for
> the sendmail package. Sendmail used to create /etc/pam.d/smtp.sendmail
> which alternatives wou
i was going to ask the same question... sort of.
i installed the first sendmail fix (22.9) on a redhat 7.3 system last week
without noticing any problems since.
would you guys still advice me to also update to the newly updated sendmail
packages(22.10) or would it be wiser not fix something tha
David Eisenstein wrote:
Adam Gibson wrote:
Adam Gibson wrote:
One thing I noticed after the latest yum update of sendmail from the
previous update is that alternatives is broken for /etc/pam.d/smtp for
the sendmail package. <>
So basically it boils down to alternatives with the newer sendmai
Eric Rostetter napisał(a):
Quoting Jancio Wodnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi. but above statement is not true. There are still problem with
alternatives on rh7.3 and rh9 when updated to latest sendmail update.
Lates update didn't fix that. Sorry, but there is still some work to do.
Regrads,
Iren
Adam Gibson wrote:
> Adam Gibson wrote:
>
>> One thing I noticed after the latest yum update of sendmail from the
>> previous update is that alternatives is broken for /etc/pam.d/smtp for
>> the sendmail package. <>
> So basically it boils down to alternatives with the newer sendmail
> updates do
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 00:46, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Btw, it would be nice if someone updated the private rsync access
> lists.
Whoops. I had this on my to-do list, but my move across the country has
dropped a few things. I'll add it back to my list and try to update that for
you.
FWIW, th
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 22:07, NARS wrote:
I think FC2 is still used by many people, I would suggest you consider
supporting FC2 for some more time if possible.
Hi NARS,
I believe the problem is caused by lack of enough manpower. Maybe, if you can
round up s
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 22:07, NARS wrote:
> If fedoralegacy supported FC1 for so long why to take fc2 out now? Try to
> do a search on dedicated servers providers, you will find most of them
> still provide FC2, and for eg. Plesk supports FC3 only on latest versions
> (officially)... another exam
Quoting Jancio Wodnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi. but above statement is not true. There are still problem with
alternatives on rh7.3 and rh9 when updated to latest sendmail update.
Lates update didn't fix that. Sorry, but there is still some work to do.
Regrads,
Irens.
Then you best report wh
Kelson napisał(a):
Kurt Bechstein wrote:
I have a question on the recent sendmail updates. I'm referencing two
urls here and they are:
http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/489
http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/581
They both appear to refer to the same sendmail bug so I'm just curious
if the initial pack
Kurt Bechstein wrote:
I have a question on the recent sendmail updates. I'm referencing two
urls here and they are:
http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/489
http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/581
They both appear to refer to the same sendmail bug so I'm just curious
if the initial packages didn't fully f
I have a question on the recent sendmail updates. I'm referencing two
urls here and they are:
http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/489
http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/581
They both appear to refer to the same sendmail bug so I'm just curious
if the initial packages didn't fully fix the problem or if the
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 22:07, NARS wrote:
> I think FC2 is still used by many people, I would suggest you consider
> supporting FC2 for some more time if possible.
Hi NARS,
I believe the problem is caused by lack of enough manpower. Maybe, if you can
round up some volunteers with time, machine
Adam Gibson wrote:
One thing I noticed after the latest yum update of sendmail from the
previous update is that alternatives is broken for /etc/pam.d/smtp for
the sendmail package. Sendmail used to create /etc/pam.d/smtp.sendmail
which alternatives would create a symlink at /etc/pam.d/smtp to
One thing I noticed after the latest yum update of sendmail from the
previous update is that alternatives is broken for /etc/pam.d/smtp for
the sendmail package. Sendmail used to create /etc/pam.d/smtp.sendmail
which alternatives would create a symlink at /etc/pam.d/smtp to
eventually point to
19 matches
Mail list logo
