From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 26 11:09:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18216 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:09:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pau-amma.whistle.com (s205m64.whistle.com [207.76.205.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA18191 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:09:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dhw@whistle.com) Received: (from dhw@localhost) by pau-amma.whistle.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00446 for questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:08:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dhw) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:08:37 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wolfskill Message-Id: <199805261808.LAA00446@pau-amma.whistle.com> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Permissions changing on sendmail solved. Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >From: john >Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 10:49:53 -0500 (CDT) >> Yes. But this is redundant if you have sendmail enabled in /etc/rc.conf >> with the default flags. >Yes it is, but I've got tcpwrappers running sendmail from /etc/inetd.conf >smtp stream tcp nowait/5 root /usr/local/libexec/tcpd /usr/sbin/sendmail -bs >I think I can just do sendmail -bm -q30m and be ok as well as the inetd >spawned sendmail. Please note that this depends on how sendmail was compiled (whether or not it was with -DTCPWRAPPERS specified). If -DTCPWRAPPERS was specified, you don't need to be using the indirection trick that inetd.conf provides, because the executable will make use of libwrap.a from tcpwrappers directly. david -- David Wolfskill dhw@whistle.com (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message