From owner-freebsd-security  Sun Jun 16 22:47:47 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA14583
          for security-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns2.harborcom.net (root@ns2.harborcom.net [206.158.4.4])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA14578
          for <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bunghole.dunn.org (bunghole.dunn.org [206.158.7.243]) by ns2.harborcom.net (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05549; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 01:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199606170547.BAA05549@ns2.harborcom.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dunn@harborcom.net>
From: "Bradley Dunn" <dunn@harborcom.net>
Organization: Harbor Communications
To: TWC <twc@ns.calyx.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 01:43:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Secure way to do mail 
Reply-to: dunn@harborcom.net
CC: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.31)
Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Wait a sec... Doesn't sendmail bind to port 25 during startup, at 
which point it is invoked by root from rc right? Why would it need to 
be setuid if it is being run by root?

On 16 Jun 96 at 22:47, TWC wrote:

> 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.)

Bradley Dunn <dunn@harborcom.net>
Harbor Communications -- www.haborcom.net