Dan, thanks for your response!
Daniel Liston wrote:
> I apologize for posting your entire message in my reply, but I will
> be inserting comments throughout.
>
>
> Michael Regoli wrote:
>
>> Got a problem with majordomo that just started happening. For my
>> scenario please assume Dan Liston's excellent "assumptions" (below).
>> These all hold true for my site, except that majordomo.cf lives in
>> /usr/local/majordomo.
>
>
> Unless you host mailing lists, or yours is hosted, I recommend putting
> majordomo.cf in /etc or at least creating a link there to the one in
> /usr/local/majordomo. The perl scripts all seem to want to use this
> location by default, or at least as a alternate option to the $ENV
> for majordomo.
We serve as a host to almost one hundred listserves.
>> System: Redhat 9. Sendmail ver 8.12.9
>
>
> You know that sendmail 8.12.x has some configuration issues we have
> not been used to with previous versions? There is now the sendmail
> message submission program (smmsp) that must be dealt with to allow
> for majordomo lists. Group memberships, file ownerships, and another
> configuration that must "trust" majordomo.
Yes, we had to "trust" "majordom" in sendmail.cf and submit.cf. All
seems fine.
>> Majordomo is running fine, has been for several years. Until then
>> upgrade to Redhat9. Suddenly my moderated lists turn down
>> moderator-initiated unsubscription requests with the following line
>> in /usr/local/majordomo/Log (names changed to protect the innocent):
>
>
> Considering this was all working for a long time before the OS upgrade
> which included a sendmail upgrade, you may want to focus on that area.
Exactly! And I discovered that in migrating to the new OS, we just used
a copy of the previous majordomo installation, including the "wrapper"
binary, and installed from that. That was our big mistake, as it turns
out that while we were passing all of our "tests", some strangeness
showed up when running (as non-root) the wrapper "test." ("./wrapper
config-test" from the majordomo directory). Specifically group and user
IDs.
Turns out that since the GUID/UID were COMPILED INTO "wrapper"--the
group and user IDs were from our old setup, and these IDs changed just
slightly under RH9 to break things. Grabbing the source, recompiling
"wrapper" was the solution to our problem.
>> majordomo:*:19:19:Major Domo,,,,:/usr/local/majordomo:/bin/csh
>
>
> You have a "slight" conflict of information here. The passwd entry for
> majordomo states it's group membership to be 19 rather than 666. I use
> 91:91 on my redhat system, just to stay matched up with the RPM. Is it
> possible that you have two entries for majordomo in the /etc/group file?
> Side note: csh is probably not the best choice of shells for majordomo.
That was another clue! And I changed majordomo's shell to
/sbin/nologin :-)
>> p.s. And am I the only one who feels that Majordomo 1.94.5 is adrift
>> with no one working on it? Dan Liston posted to the developer's list
>> some time ago asking if it was time to "rebundle" majordomo's
>> distribution, complete with all of the security fixes/patches. No
>> one replied. Yet I would love to see a new distro, complete with all
>> of the requisite security patches (or at the very least a LIST of the
>> necessary patches one must apply to the 1.94.5 distribution.)
>
>
> I think the most work was done on majordomo between '92 and '93. The
> .5 release added some cool and needed features, but still has some Y2k
> compatibility issues with digest and archive. Those of us that still
> like to tinker, do not own majordomo or have any right to release code
> that has not been approved for distribution by the owner.
>
> There is a majordomo II project that appears to be active, and even
> though
> the code is _STILL_ in alpha release after more than 3.5 years, claims
> have
> been made by many users that it outperforms majordomo 1.9x considerably.
Do you have a list of the minimum "patches" that should be made to
1.94.5? We're running the stock distribution of that version, yet you
seemed to hint
(http://www.greatcircle.com/lists/majordomo-workers/mhonarc/majordomo-workers.200304/msg00000.html)
that there were necessary security fixes. Did you save that list?
Thanks again for your great advice, and help on the majordomo-users
listserv. Your assistance over the years has been invaluable! --Michael
>
>
> Dan Liston
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
