Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:47:20 -0400 (EDT) From: TWC <twc@ns.calyx.com> To: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: TWC <twc@ns.calyx.com>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Secure way to do mail Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.94.960616224105.10754C-100000@mojo.calyx.net> In-Reply-To: <26496.834968111@palmer.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-- -- TWC -- twc@netpimp.com -- On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Gary Palmer wrote: > TWC wrote in message ID > <Pine.NEB.3.94.960616191530.9006A-100000@mojo.calyx.net>: > > > > > My reason for not using the standard smap implementation (smap takes the > > incoming mail then smapd collects and runs sendmail on it) is that I'd > > like to leave a setuid sendmail out of the equation entirely. Local users > > could still exploit it, and there are certain sendmail holes that could be > > a problem even in a non-interactive chroot'ed environment. > > Why not still use procmail for local delivery and leave sendmail > non-suid? Won't that fit your requirements? You can configure sendmail > to use procmail rather than mail.local for delivery... Doesn't sendmail need to be setuid at least to bind to the priveleged port? I'm under the impression that starting it from inetd is a "bad idea" in that inetd craps out when many connections are opened at one (a situation that happens commonsly as lists come into our shell machine.) I have procmail installed now as the sendmail local delivery agent. I was hoping to somehow take advantage of smap's extreme simplicity. I like the idea of a very simple, reliable, solidly coded program answering on port 25. > > Gary > -- > Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member > FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.94.960616224105.10754C-100000>