Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:00:07 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/35371: /etc/rc virecover script starts sendmail even if sendmail should be off Message-ID: <200202281100.g1SB07v70661@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR conf/35371; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: conf/35371: /etc/rc virecover script starts sendmail even if sendmail should be off
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:59:26 +0200
Oof; let GNATS know about this, too..
----- Forwarded message from Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> -----
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:56:31 +0200
From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
To: Michael Wardle <michael@endbracket.net>
Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: conf/35371: /etc/rc virecover script starts sendmail even if sendmail should be off
Mail-Followup-To: Michael Wardle <michael@endbracket.net>,
freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
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
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 <michael@endbracket.net>
> 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.
----- End forwarded message -----
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202281100.g1SB07v70661>