Kai Schaetzl wrote

Frank Steiner wrote on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:26:56 +0100:

...

Take the src.rpm for 9.1, remove the BuildRequires line in the spec file, rpmbuild -ba, and let it run on 9.0

I've got the same problem as the original poster. Did you already try this approach or was it only a suggestion? I know that I can change the spec

I did this on and for a 9.0 machine. -- Dipl.-Inform. Frank Steiner Web: http://www.bio.ifi.lmu.de/~steiner/ Lehrstuhl f. Bioinformatik Mail: http://www.bio.ifi.lmu.de/~steiner/m/ LMU, Amalienstr. 17 Phone: +49 89 2180-4049 80333 Muenchen, Germany Fax: +49 89 2180-99-4049 * Rekursion kann man erst verstehen, wenn man Rekursion verstanden hat. *

Frank Steiner wrote on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:01:30 +0100:

I did this on and for a 9.0 machine.

Great. Many thanks for the confirmation! Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com

Holger Diehm iS-Fun Internet Services GmbH wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:46:08 +0100:

I only had to rehash some dbs.

Yeah, why does it do this? I learned that the maps where missing when mail bound for our clients suddenly went to me ...

I would share the built rpms - but i have zlib and other things upgraded manually, so they won't fin any other std-suse9.0-System. But the way to build sendmail from the srpm is a clean way to go for anyone. It even built an installed cleanly on some 8.2 machines.

Ah, good to know, thanks, I was just going to start on these. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com

dcb@vcomcon.com wrote:

I've downloaded the sendmail-8.12.11-2.2.src.rpm, however, it's not immediately clear how to extract the contents so as to make the modification. A bit more help would be great!

http://www.google.com/search?q=rpm+tutorial&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Rainer

Ok, I just gotta say this. This is sus-security, and you want to run *sendmail*?! Huh? What was once the leading source of server vulnerabilities? Why not switch to Postfix right now? If you must run Sendmail, you likely want to protect it with something like AppArmor. SUSE Pro 9.1 and SLES9 are the oldest editions that will support AppArmor. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/ Director of Software Engineering, Novell http://novell.com

Am 31.03.2006 um 22:06 schrieb Chuck Linsley:

Crispin Cowan wrote:

...

Ok, I just gotta say this. This is sus-security, and you want to run *sendmail*?! Huh? What was once the leading source of server vulnerabilities? Why not switch to Postfix right now?

Or qmail? From what I've read, which may or may not be either accurate or unbiased, Postfix is good, but qmail is even better.

What is the reason for SuSE's choice of Postfix over qmail?

Licensing. Or the fact that DJB didn't provided any kind of license with Qmail. Also, redistribution in binary-format is not allowed. And Postfix may be better suited for stand-alone desktop usage. Plus it has got a more modular architecture. For hosting, there's still nothing coming close to all the integrated tools from Inter7. And these lists are still run by qmail (if you read the headers), though that may have to do with the fact that nobody wants to do the migration ;-) cheers, Rainer

Rainer Duffner wrote:

Am 31.03.2006 um 22:06 schrieb Chuck Linsley:

...

What is the reason for SuSE's choice of Postfix over qmail? Licensing. Or the fact that DJB didn't provided any kind of license with Qmail. Also, redistribution in binary-format is not allowed. Indeed. The licensing of Qmail is very interesting, and frustrating for distributions like SUSE.

The Qmail license says all sorts of interesting things. You can re-distribute the source code. You can modify the source code. You can compile and run the source code and host it yourself. *But* as Rainer points out, you are not permitted to distribute the binaries. More specifically, the only binary you are permitted to distribute is the one that DJB produced, bit for bit verbatim. no re-compiling of any kind. DJB justifies this by saying that he does not want to do support on hacked versions of his code, because he considers 3rd party modifications to be the most likely source of vulnerabilities, and he doesn't want to clean other peoples' messes. An arrogant position for most people, but for DJB he is likely correct. As a consequence, Qmail is formally *not* open source, even though the source code is available, because the source code is not *freely* (libre) available because of this restriction. Therefore it is basically not possible for SUSE to distribute Qmail. At most we could bundle the source code and give you instructions on how to compile it. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/ Director of Software Engineering, Novell http://novell.com

miguel gmail wrote:

...

Therefore it is basically not possible for SUSE to distribute Qmail. At most we could bundle the source code and give you instructions on how to compile it.

Oh! That would be more than wellcome for newcommers to mail servers administrators... :-)

IMHO, newcommers to mail server administration should not be messing with compiling the mail server, they have enough variables to worry about :) So these newcomers should just use Postfix. Advanced mail server administrators, on the other hand, are free to go download the source for Qmail and deploy it themselves. The Qmail license effectively prevents SUSE from adding significant value, so there is no point in bundling it. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/ Director of Software Engineering, Novell http://novell.com

On 4/4/06, Jure Koren wrote:

Crispin Cowan wrote:

...

...

Oh! That would be more than wellcome for newcommers to mail servers administrators... :-) IMHO, newcommers to mail server administration should not be messing with compiling the mail server, they have enough variables to worry about :) So these newcomers should just use Postfix. Advanced mail server administrators, on the other hand, are free to go download the source for Qmail and deploy it themselves. The Qmail license effectively prevents SUSE from adding significant value, so there is no point in bundling it.

I absolutely agree with this position, but also have much less respect for DJBs position on his source code. Postfix is an example of great free software and performs very well in a full range of usage scenarios. Consequentially, it is also very secure and also no. 1 choice for a large majority of e-mail servers, for soho solutions and large clusters alike. Being actively developed, it also implements features Qmail is very likely never going to have, as DJB is only one man. I don't see how suse (the distribution) would benefit from bundling this software. I may like it, but I can't use it because of all the issues set forth in this thread.

I do agree with (all of) you. Nothing easier than using the bundled Postfix. It is quite easy to use, and there is as much information as I may ever need. And I did use it some time ago. But I am also looking to improve my knowledge, the possibilities I offer to my customers, say with qmail, exim or whatever. And including some detailed and specific instructions for installing qmail on SuSE... would be a definitive advantage for qmail and lazy administrators like me. Maybe, the word ´newcommers´ was not very accurarate in my case :-? -- Saludos, miguel

miguel gmail wrote:

I do agree with (all of) you. Nothing easier than using the bundled Postfix. It is quite easy to use, and there is as much information as I may ever need. And I did use it some time ago.

But I am also looking to improve my knowledge, the possibilities I offer to my customers, say with qmail, exim or whatever. And including some detailed and specific instructions for installing qmail on SuSE... would be a definitive advantage for qmail and lazy administrators like me.

The problem is: you need a lot of patches to make it work the way you want. The patches may be incompatible, and thus several different fearless code-warriors merged some of their favourite patches. People have actually created businesses by providing patches, tutorials and scripts to ease the installation of qmail and related tools. I prefer Matt Simerson's toaster-setup: http://www.tnpi.biz/internet/mail/toaster.shtml But there are more: http://www.qmailrocks.org/ http://www.shupp.org/toaster/ http://www.qmailtoaster.com/ The problem is: you still have to have a good idea what the scripts will be doing in the background, or you're really lost in case things don't work anymore (but you can then hire the guy who wrote the tutorial - as I said, most have created a business out of it...) cheers, Rainer

<...>

I do agree with (all of) you. Nothing easier than using the bundled Postfix. It is quite easy to use, and there is as much information as I may ever need. And I did use it some time ago.

But I am also looking to improve my knowledge, the possibilities I offer to my customers, say with qmail, exim or whatever. And including some detailed and specific instructions for installing qmail on SuSE... would be a definitive advantage for qmail and lazy administrators like me.

I strongly suggest to read life with qmail (http://www.lifewithqmail.org/) written by Dave Sill, it gives you all the information needed to install, configure and maintain a qmail server. If you don't go with stock qmail but rather with netqmail (as suggested in life with qmail), you will have a handful of the most useful patches at hand. If you follow the instructions to the point you will get a solid installation of qmail. In case of any problem you may ask for help on the qmail list. But be warned, don't ask FAQs on the qmail list and read the archives before asking - otherwise wear your asbestos suit ;-) But if you like a packaged MTA with whistles and bells that runs great just out of the rpm, postfix is the way to go. Best regards Reto

miguel gmail wrote:

...

Therefore it is basically not possible for SUSE to distribute Qmail. At most we could bundle the source code and give you instructions on how to compile it.

Oh! That would be more than wellcome for newcommers to mail servers administrators... :-)

But especially for newcomers I'd strongly suggest to go with Postfix. Qmail can be a very reliable, secure and capable mailserver. But to make it capable, you have to patch it to even get what nowadays is regarded as basic functionality. And unfortunately the patches don't always work together, and they can make qmail less reliable and secure. To get a working qmail up and running like it should, you really have to know what you do. And if you do that, you can already download the sourcecode yourself. I maintain a qmail mailserver myself and compared to my postfix servers, it's far more hassle to do any changes like integrating a virus scanner. Postfix on the other hand comes pre-packaged, has it's configuration in a central location, has a configuration one can easily understand (and there's enough comments to help you) and nice documentation. Regards, Stefan Seifert

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 20:13, Chuck Linsley wrote:

Stefan Seifert wrote:

...

Postfix on the other hand comes pre-packaged, has it's configuration in a central location, has a configuration one can easily understand (and there's enough comments to help you) and nice documentation. Can postfix easily do virtual domains?

Yes, this is basic functionality. The debate is not fit for a security list, but I can help with it off-list, or you can join postfix-users mailing list. Until then it is best if you read the docs: http://www.postfix.org/virtual.5.html and http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html -- Jure Koren, n.i.

Frank Steiner wrote on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:26:56 +0100:

Take the src.rpm for 9.1, remove the BuildRequires line in the spec file, rpmbuild -ba, and let it run on 9.0

The build process fails in the last stages because of a missing submit.cf chown: failed to get attributes of `/var/tmp/sendmail-8.12.11-build/etc/mail/submit.cf': No such file or directory Anyone knows what's missing that it doesn't get put there? The tarball contains it in cf/cf. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com