From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Feb 28 2:56:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from straylight.ringlet.net (support.nanolink.com [217.75.134.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0686437B41B for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 5558 invoked by uid 1000); 28 Feb 2002 10:56:31 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:56:31 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: Michael Wardle Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/35371: /etc/rc virecover script starts sendmail even if sendmail should be off Message-ID: <20020228125629.C456@straylight.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Wardle , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org References: <200202281020.g1SAK2R65822@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200202281020.g1SAK2R65822@freefall.freebsd.org>; from michael@endbracket.net on Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 02:20:02AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 02:20:02AM -0800, Michael Wardle wrote: > The following reply was made to PR conf/35371; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Michael Wardle > To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org > Cc: > Subject: Re: conf/35371: /etc/rc virecover script starts sendmail even if sendmail should be off > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:18:51 -0800 (PST) > > 1) shouldn't we test to see if sendmail is installed before calling it? /usr/sbin/sendmail is simply a symlink to mailwrapper(8); see below. > 2) shouldn't it be possible to disable calling "sendmail" (particularly > if ${sendmail_enable} is NO)? Yes, edit your mailer.conf to run e.g. /bin/true when /usr/sbin/sendmail is invoked :) > 3) is there any reason why we shouldn't call "mail" instead of > "sendmail"? (admittedly, i don't know too much about these > utilities, > but I thought it would be preferred to invoke a MUA rather than an > MTA if all we wanted to do was send a message) With the arguments it is invoked, sendmail would actually function as a MUA; any sendmail wrappers installed by ports (e.g. qmail's /var/qmail/bin/sendmail) would recognize that and act appropriately. > 4) if we're going to call an MTA rather than an MUA, shouldn't we at > least test whether it's already running > (i don't think it's correct to invoke what seems to be a system > utility (usually invoked as a daemon) from a shell script in this > way -- i could be wrong) We are not running it as an MTA; we are only calling it as a MUA, all it is supposed to do is (somehow) queue a message for delivery by the actual system MTA. > 5) shouldn't we call whatever MTA the user has configured (e.g. > sendmail, postfix, exim, qmail)? Invoking /usr/sbin/sendmail actually invokes mailwrapper(8) under the name of 'sendmail'; that is, it is exactly what you want - invoking whatever MTA the user has chosen to install. I suspect that a large part of the confusion here is caused by the fact that sendmail may function as an MTA, MUA or even simply an MSA, depending on its command-line arguments. G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 I am not the subject of this sentence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message