Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:50:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Crist J. Clark" <crist.clark@attbi.com> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/39444: rc.sendmail syntax error: cannot disable sendmail Message-ID: <200206182350.g5INo3v37061@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR conf/39444; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Crist J. Clark" <crist.clark@attbi.com>
To: "Jin Guojun[DSD]" <j_guojun@lbl.gov>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, dougb@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: conf/39444: rc.sendmail syntax error: cannot disable sendmail
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:47:41 -0700
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 03:28:22PM -0700, Jin Guojun[DSD] wrote:
> "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > "NO" _can_ be used. It's meaning is different than "NONE." "NO" means
> > not to run the sendmail(8) listener, but the submitting and 'outbound'
> > daemons can still be run.
>
> sendmail does not need to run on background to send/submit outbound mail.
> The backgrounding daemon is solely for receiving inbound message.
Please see /etc/mail/README.
> I like your explanation of the way to use "NO", but I do not know if
> rc.sendmail does it correctly. Below is what sendmail_enable="NO" does:
>
> freebsd: ps xaugww | grep sendmail
> root 122 0.0 1.8 2760 2228 ?? Ss 3:28PM 0:02.90 sendmail:
> accepting connections (sendmail)
> smmsp 125 0.0 1.7 2652 2192 ?? Is 3:28PM 0:00.07 sendmail: Queue
> runner@00:30:00 for /var/spool/clientmqueue (sendmail)
>
> Does process 122 accept message only from localhost or from anywhere?
Look at 'netstat -an | fgrep LISTEN' to see.
> Is this really "NO" action, or "YES" action?
That's "NO."
> > See rc.sendmail(8) for details. If you feel the documentation is
> > lacking, please submit a new PR with your ideas for improvements, but
> > the code works as desired.
>
> Nop, the manual page does not say "NO" can be used any where. If "NO"
> cannot be used, then, it is not compatible to existing sys-admin
> syntax. It forces to use "NONE" instead of "NO" as Doug's message
> in closing this case:
"NO" can be used. "YES" and "NONE" have special meanings, and anything else
defaults to what we consider the "NO" behavior. However, no check that
it really is set to "NO" is made. You can set it to "FOO" and get the
same bahavior as "NO," but the behavior is different than for "YES" or
"NONE."
> : While it's not totally clear in the script, setting
> : sendmail_enable to NONE will indeed prevent anything
> : in that script from running.
>
> His message is negtive on using "NO". I think the current situation
> is very unclear.
> If "NO" is out of scope, what is the extreme reason to use "NONE"?
Go to the -stable or -current archives. After _much_ discussion, it
was decided not to change the "classic" meaning of "NO" (which was no
sendmail(8) listener, but the sendmail_outbound_enable knob was
independent). But another vocal camp wanted a single knob to turn
sendmail(8) off completely. Thus, the "NONE" switch came in.
> If "NO" can be used, then things will be correct if process 122 accepts
> message from localhost only. Is this true?
Yes.
> If so, the document needs to
> reflect this situation. Otherwise, people will get confused because
> sendmail is no required to run on the background for outbound traffic
> in the past.
See /etc/mail/README and /usr/src/UPDATING (although reading that can
be confusing since many changes were made, then backed out, and then
changed again).
--
Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu
| cjclark@jhu.edu
http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200206182350.g5INo3v37061>