Check the permissions and mode bits of the directory...
then compare that to what user your sendmail system is running as and if that
user has
rwx access to the dir.
-Ben
--
Ben Kamen - O.D.T., S.P.
==
Email: bkamen AT
Permissions on /var/spool/clientmqueue are as follows:
drwxrwx---2 mail mail 4096 Feb 28 13:13 clientmqueue
What about permission on /var and /var/spool directories???
Giovanni
--
Giovanni Mellini
___
NOTE: If there is a
Hi,
What about permission on /var and /var/spool directories???
/var is:
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Nov 8 2004 var
/var/spool is:
drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 Feb 28 13:13 spool
Thanks,
Lisa Casey
___
NOTE: If
Hi
have a look here
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2002-November/012326.html
I hope this is useful
--
Giovanni Mellini
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You
At 09:07 AM 3/8/2006, you wrote:
Permissions on /var/spool/clientmqueue are as follows:
drwxrwx---2 mail mail 4096 Feb 28 13:13 clientmqueue
What about permission on /var and /var/spool directories???
And, do you have a queue runner? Usually running as smmsp. Here are
# default UID (can be username or userid:groupid)
O DefaultUser=8:12
In my password file, this is the user mail:
mail:x:8:12:mail:/var/spool/mail:/sbin/nologin
Permissions on /var/spool/clientmqueue are as follows:
drwxrwx---2 mail mail 4096 Feb 28 13:13
Just a thought.
Is mimedefang running as user defang?
If so, is that user a member of the mail group (12 in your case)?
Hope this helps.
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 09:51, Lisa Casey wrote:
Hi Ben,
Check the permissions and mode bits of the directory...
then compare that to what user
Hi,
Just a thought.
Is mimedefang running as user defang?
Yes
If so, is that user a member of the mail group (12 in your case)?
Hmm... no but I don't see how that would hurt. I'll try it.
Lisa
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other
Lisa Casey wrote:
[A question]
No-one has answered this question correctly yet.
The real answer:
1) The permissions on the Sendmail binary need to look like this:
-rwxr-sr-x 1 root smmsp 705836 Jun 3 2005 sendmail
(That's mode 2755)
2) The permissions on /var/spool/mqueue need to look
On Wednesday, March 8, 2006, 9:14:57 AM, Kevin McGrail wrote:
A co-worker of mine just pointed this out to me today. He tested it in
Thunderbird and I tested it in OE6. It warrants serious attention.
Ignoring the munged part, this would trick a very savvy internet user that
allows HTML
--On Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:24 PM -0800 Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's an interesting use, but I don't believe it would confuse
SpamAssassin, etc. The second URI should be visible enough to be
checked, and I added the IP to ph.surbl.org.
Is there an SA rule that checks for
--On Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:40 PM -0500 Theo Van Dinter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not in SA proper. For curiosity sake, I wrote up a quick rule to test
it out:
MSECSSPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE NAME
027920 49400.850 0.000.00 (all messages)
1.400
Kenneth Porter wrote:
Makes me wonder about installing outbound filters that run a validator
and reject anything that fails. I often see flame wars on mailing lists
about allowing HTML posts to the list, but I wonder how the arguments
would change if one allowed only *validated* HTML.
Ooh!
I put a rule in for testing just for this part of the process but a nested
a tag inside another a tag is a good idea as well. I want to see what
the corpus view is on this issue as well.
rawbody KAM_PHISH1 /u style=cursor: pointer/
describeKAM_PHISH1 Test for PHISH
--On Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:12 PM -0500 David F. Skoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ooh! You're onto something! Allowing only strictly-validated HTML
would have the same effect as disallowing HTML altogether, but would
be far easier to justify to the PHBs as a
15 matches
Mail list logo
