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...
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.
>From: Bob Hendersen
>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:33 PM
>To: Todd Lyons; firstname.lastname@example.org
>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 184.108.40.206.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?
> --- Todd Lyons <email@example.com> 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
From: "Kozloski, Matthew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>