Re: upgrade

[Ed Kasky <ed @ wrenkasky . com>]

FWIW, I have to agree with Matt on this one.  There are a few things I 
won't use rpm's for and sendmail is one of them.  It takes a little extra 
time but definitely worth the flexibility and assurance that the binary 
will work properly...

Ed Kasky
Los Angeles, CA
. . . . . . . .
Genderplex: Trying to determine from the cutesy pictures
which restroom to use.

At 01:49 PM Monday, 3/31/2003, Kozloski, Matthew wrote -=>

>I am running Sendmail 8.12.8 with no problems.  It is a hand-compiled 
>version, so I can't speak for the rpm's.
>
>Matt
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Hendersen 
>[<mailto:bobhendersen@yahoo.ca>mailto:bobhendersen@yahoo.ca]
>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:33 PM
>To: Todd Lyons; majordomo-users@greatcircle.com
>Subject: Re: upgrade
>
>A few weeks ago we upgraded the sendmail on our RH 7.2
>machine (which runs majordomo 1.94.5) from
>8.11.6-3.rpm to 8.11.6.23.rpm to get the buffer
>overflow fix.  We immediately started having problems
>with our majordomo lists in that messages did not get
>sent to all list recipients.  We reverted sendmail
>back to 8.11.6-3 and the problem went away.
>
>We'll be doing some testing with sendmail 8.12 before
>we upgrade specifically to test whether it breaks
>majordomo as the earlier patch did.  I'll let folks
>know what we find.  Has anyone on Linux 7.2 upgraded
>to sendmail 8.12x and found problems with majordomo?
>
>Bob
>
>  --- Todd Lyons <todd@mrball.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN
>PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Just in case anybody missed it, there's another root
> > exploit (local) for
> > sendmail.  Please upgrade your boxen before they're
> > rooted.  Note that
> > this is less of an issue if you don't allow anybody
> > to login to your
> > box, but even still, don't wait too long to upgrade.
> >
> > Or switch to a different mailer.
> > - --
> > Blue skies...         Todd