From karlp at ourldsfamily.com Mon Dec 1 06:22:52 2008 From: karlp at ourldsfamily.com (Karl Pearson) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:22:52 -0700 (MST) Subject: multibooting In-Reply-To: <599fc6a50811281356s14f9c1fdqa8fd775302e0686e@mail.gmail.com> References: <599fc6a50811281356s14f9c1fdqa8fd775302e0686e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Dick Bentley wrote: > Running three OSs plus Knoppix on an AMD64-based machine with 3 large SATA > drives, onr allocated to each system -- currently XP Prox64, Debian, and > Ubuntu -- I started out with XP, Fedora, and Ubuntu. When I upgraded Ubuntu > it correctly modified the GRUB bootloader, but when I upgraded Fedora to 9 > it failed to recognize and incorporate the other operating systems. My goal > with this circus is to identify a Linux or Unix based system I will be happy > with as a replacement for Microsoft when they quit supporting XP, which is > as far as I'm willing to go with them on my home/office workstation (a very > small and neglected market). > > Anyone know if Fedora 10 will play nice with XP and Ubuntu via GRUB? > > I gave up on SUSE, which seems determined to have the whole machine or > nothing; but I would like to get a little more experience with Fedora. I > still have freeBSD and Solaris on my list as well. I always ran Red Hat > with my Windows system at home until they split off Fedora and went for the > corporate market, and I have worked in Windows, MacIntosh, and Solaris shops > -- so now that I am in my Golden Years I do know what I am groping toward. > Sort of. I would recommend trying Linux Mint. Version 6 just came out, but I've been very happy with version 5 and still use it until I have time to boot to the v6 live CD and see what an upgrade will do. It's still a Beta, so you might want to try 5 anyway. It's based on Ubuntu, but doesn't have the limitations in the repositories Ubuntu has, which is why I don't like Ubuntu anyway. Another very good distro is PCLinuxOS. The main developer has had personal issues to deal with, so the 2008 release never got out, but some other developers have stepped in and will be releasing a 2009 version soon. PCLOS has a control panel which rivals any I've seen on any OS, bar none. This distro is based on RedHat. HTH, Karl > > Thanks, > > rmbdick > --- _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ ____________ __o _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ____________ _-\\<._ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/ (_)/ (_) _/ _/ _/ _/ ...................... _/ _/ arl _/_/_/ _/ earson KarlP at ourldsfamily.com --- http://consulting.ourldsfamily.com --- "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Quincy Adams --- Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy. -- Robert Heinlein --- "To mess up your Linux PC, you have to really work at it; to mess up a microsoft PC you just have to work on it." --- From karlp at ourldsfamily.com Mon Dec 1 06:24:34 2008 From: karlp at ourldsfamily.com (Karl Pearson) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:24:34 -0700 (MST) Subject: multibooting In-Reply-To: <599fc6a50811281356s14f9c1fdqa8fd775302e0686e@mail.gmail.com> References: <599fc6a50811281356s14f9c1fdqa8fd775302e0686e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Dick Bentley wrote: > Running three OSs plus Knoppix on an AMD64-based machine with 3 large SATA > drives, onr allocated to each system -- currently XP Prox64, Debian, and > Ubuntu -- I started out with XP, Fedora, and Ubuntu. When I upgraded Ubuntu > it correctly modified the GRUB bootloader, but when I upgraded Fedora to 9 > it failed to recognize and incorporate the other operating systems. My goal > with this circus is to identify a Linux or Unix based system I will be happy > with as a replacement for Microsoft when they quit supporting XP, which is > as far as I'm willing to go with them on my home/office workstation (a very > small and neglected market). > > Anyone know if Fedora 10 will play nice with XP and Ubuntu via GRUB? Forgot: don't know about Fedora 10. I use Fedora 8 on my servers... But, I would recommend single booting into Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS and then installing VMWare Server and put your XP Pro on that. I do that, but haven't found a need to even run it for several months now... I kept Win98se on it, and used it to test boot into various distros, too. I still do that, but haven't for a while there either. Again, HTH, Karl > > I gave up on SUSE, which seems determined to have the whole machine or > nothing; but I would like to get a little more experience with Fedora. I > still have freeBSD and Solaris on my list as well. I always ran Red Hat > with my Windows system at home until they split off Fedora and went for the > corporate market, and I have worked in Windows, MacIntosh, and Solaris shops > -- so now that I am in my Golden Years I do know what I am groping toward. > Sort of. > > Thanks, > > rmbdick > --- _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ ____________ __o _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ____________ _-\\<._ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/ (_)/ (_) _/ _/ _/ _/ ...................... _/ _/ arl _/_/_/ _/ earson KarlP at ourldsfamily.com --- http://consulting.ourldsfamily.com --- "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Quincy Adams --- Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy. -- Robert Heinlein --- "To mess up your Linux PC, you have to really work at it; to mess up a microsoft PC you just have to work on it." --- From ricks at nerd.com Mon Dec 1 18:11:08 2008 From: ricks at nerd.com (Rick Stevens) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:11:08 -0800 Subject: Procmail can't create mailbox In-Reply-To: <20081129175250.GB26934@bobcat.bobcatos.com> References: <20081129012428.GA22339@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <001801c951d7$64ca0730$2e5e1590$@com> <20081129125120.GA25805@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002101c95223$a21ccfe0$e6566fa0$@com> <20081129133628.GB26172@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002601c9522e$c582b2a0$508817e0$@com> <20081129175250.GB26934@bobcat.bobcatos.com> Message-ID: <493428BC.6020508@nerd.com> Bob McClure Jr wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 09:28:38AM -0500, Mark Corsi wrote: >> My guess is that the server is seeing the process as 'other'. This leaves >> two solutions. One is to start the process with sudo so it starts as root. I >> would hazard a guess that this would open up an unexpected security hole >> since this is a mail process. The other solution is to make the process >> owner part of the group that owns that folder and make the folder group >> writable. Pretty sure the second solution will maintain security while >> accomplishing your goal. > > Well, I already have a sufficiently secure work-around, but that works > around a symptom. I want to find out why an out-of-the-box > configuration quit working. Were there any diagnostics in the logs that may be of use? Did you check /usr/bin/procmail and verified it was rwxr-xr-x (755), owned by root, group of mail? Yes, /var/mail is a symlink to /var/spool/mail and the link should be mode rwxrwxrwx (777). /var/spool/mail itself should be owned by root, group of mail with mode rwxrwxr-x (775). The files below that should be owned by the user whose mailbox it is, group of mail with mode rw-rw---- (660). I know of no extra things that may be affected by the addition of a user via the "adduser" scripts that wouldn't be handled IF all of the user- related files (home directories, hidden files, etc.) are present. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks at nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Try to look unimportant. The bad guys may be low on ammo. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From ricks at nerd.com Mon Dec 1 18:26:51 2008 From: ricks at nerd.com (Rick Stevens) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:26:51 -0800 Subject: multibooting In-Reply-To: <599fc6a50811281356s14f9c1fdqa8fd775302e0686e@mail.gmail.com> References: <599fc6a50811281356s14f9c1fdqa8fd775302e0686e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49342C6B.4080409@nerd.com> Dick Bentley wrote: > Running three OSs plus Knoppix on an AMD64-based machine with 3 large SATA > drives, onr allocated to each system -- currently XP Prox64, Debian, and > Ubuntu -- I started out with XP, Fedora, and Ubuntu. When I upgraded Ubuntu > it correctly modified the GRUB bootloader, but when I upgraded Fedora to 9 > it failed to recognize and incorporate the other operating systems. My goal > with this circus is to identify a Linux or Unix based system I will be happy > with as a replacement for Microsoft when they quit supporting XP, which is > as far as I'm willing to go with them on my home/office workstation (a very > small and neglected market). That's interesting. F9 should have at least recognized XP. Was this a fresh install or an upgrade? Did you tell F9 to ignore the other drives when you installed (if so, that's probably why it didn't build grub entries for them). > Anyone know if Fedora 10 will play nice with XP and Ubuntu via GRUB? Hmmm. F10 has some issues that you may want to let settle before you use it. For example, the machine I have it on is a Phenom X4 with an nVidia 8200 video card that the base nv driver simply doesn't grok ("no device found"). I had to go get nVidia's binary blob driver for it to work properly. Another example: the network config for fixed IPs has a nasty tendency to set the netmask for the NIC to the IP address you gave it _instead_ of the _netmask_ you specified. Easy to fix once you sort out what's wrong (ifconfig is your friend). > I gave up on SUSE, which seems determined to have the whole machine or > nothing; but I would like to get a little more experience with Fedora. I > still have freeBSD and Solaris on my list as well. I always ran Red Hat > with my Windows system at home until they split off Fedora and went for the > corporate market, and I have worked in Windows, MacIntosh, and Solaris shops > -- so now that I am in my Golden Years I do know what I am groping toward. Well, keep in mind that Fedora is the bleeding edge of Red Hat. Each release has roughly a 6 month life span and older releases are EOLed two months after the second successor has been released (F10 came out last week, F8 will be EOLed at the end of the year, perhaps January). For stability, think CentOS...built from RHEL source RPMs with RH badging replaced. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks at nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Perseverance: When you're too damned stubborn to say "I quit!" - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From bob at bobcatos.com Mon Dec 1 20:08:50 2008 From: bob at bobcatos.com (Bob McClure Jr) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:08:50 -0600 Subject: Procmail can't create mailbox In-Reply-To: <493428BC.6020508@nerd.com> References: <20081129012428.GA22339@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <001801c951d7$64ca0730$2e5e1590$@com> <20081129125120.GA25805@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002101c95223$a21ccfe0$e6566fa0$@com> <20081129133628.GB26172@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002601c9522e$c582b2a0$508817e0$@com> <20081129175250.GB26934@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <493428BC.6020508@nerd.com> Message-ID: <20081201200850.GB9783@bobcat.bobcatos.com> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:11:08AM -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: > Bob McClure Jr wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 09:28:38AM -0500, Mark Corsi wrote: >>> My guess is that the server is seeing the process as 'other'. This leaves >>> two solutions. One is to start the process with sudo so it starts as root. I >>> would hazard a guess that this would open up an unexpected security hole >>> since this is a mail process. The other solution is to make the process >>> owner part of the group that owns that folder and make the folder group >>> writable. Pretty sure the second solution will maintain security while >>> accomplishing your goal. >> >> Well, I already have a sufficiently secure work-around, but that works >> around a symptom. I want to find out why an out-of-the-box >> configuration quit working. > > Were there any diagnostics in the logs that may be of use? Only Nov 28 18:45:46 lfvsfcp19080 postfix/local[30613]: 759B024035: to=, orig_to=, relay=local, delay=3, delays=0/0/0/3, dsn=5.2.0, status=bounced (can't create user output file. Command output: procmail: Couldn't create "/var/mail/bmcclure" ) > Did you > check /usr/bin/procmail and verified it was rwxr-xr-x (755), owned by > root, group of mail? -rwxr-xr-x 1 root mail 99128 Jul 12 2006 /usr/bin/procmail > Yes, /var/mail is a symlink to /var/spool/mail and > the link should be mode rwxrwxrwx (777). lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 21 20:43 /var/mail -> spool/mail > /var/spool/mail itself should be owned by root, group of mail with mode > rwxrwxr-x (775). drwxrwxr-x 2 root mail 4096 Nov 28 04:02 /var/spool/mail > The files below that should be owned by the user whose > mailbox it is, group of mail with mode rw-rw---- (660). -rw------- 1 root root 0 Nov 28 04:02 root -rw-rw---- 1 root mail 0 Nov 21 20:52 root2 -rw-rw---- 1 rpc mail 0 Nov 21 20:47 rpc > I know of no extra things that may be affected by the addition of a user > via the "adduser" scripts that wouldn't be handled IF all of the user- > related files (home directories, hidden files, etc.) are present. drwx------ 25 bmcclure bmcclure 12288 Dec 1 04:02 /home/bmcclure -rw-r--r-- 1 bmcclure apache 1716 Nov 28 21:40 /home/bmcclure/.procmailrc I am mystified. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks at nerd.com - > - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - > - - > - Try to look unimportant. The bad guys may be low on ammo. - > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheers, -- Bob McClure, Jr. Bobcat Open Systems, Inc. bob at bobcatos.com http://www.bobcatos.com "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV) From ricks at nerd.com Mon Dec 1 21:21:50 2008 From: ricks at nerd.com (Rick Stevens) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:21:50 -0800 Subject: Procmail can't create mailbox In-Reply-To: <20081201200850.GB9783@bobcat.bobcatos.com> References: <20081129012428.GA22339@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <001801c951d7$64ca0730$2e5e1590$@com> <20081129125120.GA25805@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002101c95223$a21ccfe0$e6566fa0$@com> <20081129133628.GB26172@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002601c9522e$c582b2a0$508817e0$@com> <20081129175250.GB26934@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <493428BC.6020508@nerd.com> <20081201200850.GB9783@bobcat.bobcatos.com> Message-ID: <4934556E.8060206@nerd.com> Bob McClure Jr wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:11:08AM -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: >> Bob McClure Jr wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 09:28:38AM -0500, Mark Corsi wrote: >>>> My guess is that the server is seeing the process as 'other'. This leaves >>>> two solutions. One is to start the process with sudo so it starts as root. I >>>> would hazard a guess that this would open up an unexpected security hole >>>> since this is a mail process. The other solution is to make the process >>>> owner part of the group that owns that folder and make the folder group >>>> writable. Pretty sure the second solution will maintain security while >>>> accomplishing your goal. >>> Well, I already have a sufficiently secure work-around, but that works >>> around a symptom. I want to find out why an out-of-the-box >>> configuration quit working. >> Were there any diagnostics in the logs that may be of use? > > Only > > Nov 28 18:45:46 lfvsfcp19080 postfix/local[30613]: 759B024035: > to=, orig_to=, relay=local, delay=3, > delays=0/0/0/3, dsn=5.2.0, status=bounced (can't create user output > file. Command output: procmail: Couldn't create "/var/mail/bmcclure" ) > >> Did you >> check /usr/bin/procmail and verified it was rwxr-xr-x (755), owned by >> root, group of mail? > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root mail 99128 Jul 12 2006 /usr/bin/procmail > >> Yes, /var/mail is a symlink to /var/spool/mail and >> the link should be mode rwxrwxrwx (777). > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 21 20:43 /var/mail -> spool/mail > >> /var/spool/mail itself should be owned by root, group of mail with mode >> rwxrwxr-x (775). > > drwxrwxr-x 2 root mail 4096 Nov 28 04:02 /var/spool/mail > >> The files below that should be owned by the user whose >> mailbox it is, group of mail with mode rw-rw---- (660). > > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Nov 28 04:02 root > -rw-rw---- 1 root mail 0 Nov 21 20:52 root2 > -rw-rw---- 1 rpc mail 0 Nov 21 20:47 rpc > >> I know of no extra things that may be affected by the addition of a user >> via the "adduser" scripts that wouldn't be handled IF all of the user- >> related files (home directories, hidden files, etc.) are present. > > drwx------ 25 bmcclure bmcclure 12288 Dec 1 04:02 /home/bmcclure > -rw-r--r-- 1 bmcclure apache 1716 Nov 28 21:40 /home/bmcclure/.procmailrc > > I am mystified. Have you tried (as root): touch /var/mail/bmcclure chown bmcclure:mail /var/mail/bmcclure chmod 660 /var/mail/bmcclure Not sure if the adduser scripts create the empty mailbox or not. They may...check that, they do. One of the possible exit values for useradd is: 13 can?t create mail spool Ok, now THAT'S subtle to find! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks at nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From bob at bobcatos.com Mon Dec 1 21:38:18 2008 From: bob at bobcatos.com (Bob McClure Jr) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:38:18 -0600 Subject: Procmail can't create mailbox In-Reply-To: <4934556E.8060206@nerd.com> References: <20081129012428.GA22339@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <001801c951d7$64ca0730$2e5e1590$@com> <20081129125120.GA25805@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002101c95223$a21ccfe0$e6566fa0$@com> <20081129133628.GB26172@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002601c9522e$c582b2a0$508817e0$@com> <20081129175250.GB26934@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <493428BC.6020508@nerd.com> <20081201200850.GB9783@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <4934556E.8060206@nerd.com> Message-ID: <20081201213818.GA10338@bobcat.bobcatos.com> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:21:50PM -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: > Bob McClure Jr wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:11:08AM -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: >>> Bob McClure Jr wrote: >>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 09:28:38AM -0500, Mark Corsi wrote: >>>>> My guess is that the server is seeing the process as 'other'. This leaves >>>>> two solutions. One is to start the process with sudo so it starts as root. I >>>>> would hazard a guess that this would open up an unexpected security hole >>>>> since this is a mail process. The other solution is to make the process >>>>> owner part of the group that owns that folder and make the folder group >>>>> writable. Pretty sure the second solution will maintain security while >>>>> accomplishing your goal. >>>> Well, I already have a sufficiently secure work-around, but that works >>>> around a symptom. I want to find out why an out-of-the-box >>>> configuration quit working. >>> Were there any diagnostics in the logs that may be of use? >> >> Only >> >> Nov 28 18:45:46 lfvsfcp19080 postfix/local[30613]: 759B024035: >> to=, orig_to=, relay=local, delay=3, >> delays=0/0/0/3, dsn=5.2.0, status=bounced (can't create user output >> file. Command output: procmail: Couldn't create "/var/mail/bmcclure" ) >> >>> Did you >>> check /usr/bin/procmail and verified it was rwxr-xr-x (755), owned by >>> root, group of mail? >> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root mail 99128 Jul 12 2006 /usr/bin/procmail >> >>> Yes, /var/mail is a symlink to /var/spool/mail and >>> the link should be mode rwxrwxrwx (777). >> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 21 20:43 /var/mail -> spool/mail >> >>> /var/spool/mail itself should be owned by root, group of mail with mode >>> rwxrwxr-x (775). >> >> drwxrwxr-x 2 root mail 4096 Nov 28 04:02 /var/spool/mail >> >>> The files below that should be owned by the user whose >>> mailbox it is, group of mail with mode rw-rw---- (660). >> >> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Nov 28 04:02 root >> -rw-rw---- 1 root mail 0 Nov 21 20:52 root2 >> -rw-rw---- 1 rpc mail 0 Nov 21 20:47 rpc >> >>> I know of no extra things that may be affected by the addition of a user >>> via the "adduser" scripts that wouldn't be handled IF all of the user- >>> related files (home directories, hidden files, etc.) are present. >> >> drwx------ 25 bmcclure bmcclure 12288 Dec 1 04:02 /home/bmcclure >> -rw-r--r-- 1 bmcclure apache 1716 Nov 28 21:40 /home/bmcclure/.procmailrc >> >> I am mystified. > > Have you tried (as root): > > touch /var/mail/bmcclure > chown bmcclure:mail /var/mail/bmcclure > chmod 660 /var/mail/bmcclure Yeah, I know that works. > Not sure if the adduser scripts create the empty mailbox or not. Hmm. I've been assuming that it doesn't, but I just looked at /etc/defaults/useradd, and indeed: # useradd defaults file GROUP=100 HOME=/home INACTIVE=-1 EXPIRE= SHELL=/bin/bash SKEL=/etc/skel CREATE_MAIL_SPOOL=yes > They > may...check that, they do. One of the possible exit values for useradd > is: > > 13 can?t create mail spool > > Ok, now THAT'S subtle to find! Well, that would explain this server, and I know just how to fix it. Now I have to go back to the others, because, on at least one of them, useradd was not creating the mailbox. Gotta verify that's the case and fix that. Thanks for the clue. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks at nerd.com - > - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - > - - > - Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. - > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheers, -- Bob McClure, Jr. Bobcat Open Systems, Inc. bob at bobcatos.com http://www.bobcatos.com "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV) From ricks at nerd.com Mon Dec 1 21:57:56 2008 From: ricks at nerd.com (Rick Stevens) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:57:56 -0800 Subject: Procmail can't create mailbox In-Reply-To: <20081201213818.GA10338@bobcat.bobcatos.com> References: <20081129012428.GA22339@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <001801c951d7$64ca0730$2e5e1590$@com> <20081129125120.GA25805@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002101c95223$a21ccfe0$e6566fa0$@com> <20081129133628.GB26172@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <002601c9522e$c582b2a0$508817e0$@com> <20081129175250.GB26934@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <493428BC.6020508@nerd.com> <20081201200850.GB9783@bobcat.bobcatos.com> <4934556E.8060206@nerd.com> <20081201213818.GA10338@bobcat.bobcatos.com> Message-ID: <49345DE4.1080408@nerd.com> Bob McClure Jr wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:21:50PM -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: >> Bob McClure Jr wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:11:08AM -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: >>>> Bob McClure Jr wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 09:28:38AM -0500, Mark Corsi wrote: >>>>>> My guess is that the server is seeing the process as 'other'. This leaves >>>>>> two solutions. One is to start the process with sudo so it starts as root. I >>>>>> would hazard a guess that this would open up an unexpected security hole >>>>>> since this is a mail process. The other solution is to make the process >>>>>> owner part of the group that owns that folder and make the folder group >>>>>> writable. Pretty sure the second solution will maintain security while >>>>>> accomplishing your goal. >>>>> Well, I already have a sufficiently secure work-around, but that works >>>>> around a symptom. I want to find out why an out-of-the-box >>>>> configuration quit working. >>>> Were there any diagnostics in the logs that may be of use? >>> Only >>> >>> Nov 28 18:45:46 lfvsfcp19080 postfix/local[30613]: 759B024035: >>> to=, orig_to=, relay=local, delay=3, >>> delays=0/0/0/3, dsn=5.2.0, status=bounced (can't create user output >>> file. Command output: procmail: Couldn't create "/var/mail/bmcclure" ) >>> >>>> Did you >>>> check /usr/bin/procmail and verified it was rwxr-xr-x (755), owned by >>>> root, group of mail? >>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root mail 99128 Jul 12 2006 /usr/bin/procmail >>> >>>> Yes, /var/mail is a symlink to /var/spool/mail and >>>> the link should be mode rwxrwxrwx (777). >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 21 20:43 /var/mail -> spool/mail >>> >>>> /var/spool/mail itself should be owned by root, group of mail with mode >>>> rwxrwxr-x (775). >>> drwxrwxr-x 2 root mail 4096 Nov 28 04:02 /var/spool/mail >>> >>>> The files below that should be owned by the user whose >>>> mailbox it is, group of mail with mode rw-rw---- (660). >>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Nov 28 04:02 root >>> -rw-rw---- 1 root mail 0 Nov 21 20:52 root2 >>> -rw-rw---- 1 rpc mail 0 Nov 21 20:47 rpc >>> >>>> I know of no extra things that may be affected by the addition of a user >>>> via the "adduser" scripts that wouldn't be handled IF all of the user- >>>> related files (home directories, hidden files, etc.) are present. >>> drwx------ 25 bmcclure bmcclure 12288 Dec 1 04:02 /home/bmcclure >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 bmcclure apache 1716 Nov 28 21:40 /home/bmcclure/.procmailrc >>> >>> I am mystified. >> Have you tried (as root): >> >> touch /var/mail/bmcclure >> chown bmcclure:mail /var/mail/bmcclure >> chmod 660 /var/mail/bmcclure > > Yeah, I know that works. > >> Not sure if the adduser scripts create the empty mailbox or not. > > Hmm. I've been assuming that it doesn't, but I just looked at > /etc/defaults/useradd, and indeed: > > # useradd defaults file > GROUP=100 > HOME=/home > INACTIVE=-1 > EXPIRE= > SHELL=/bin/bash > SKEL=/etc/skel > CREATE_MAIL_SPOOL=yes > >> They >> may...check that, they do. One of the possible exit values for useradd >> is: >> >> 13 can???t create mail spool >> >> Ok, now THAT'S subtle to find! > > Well, that would explain this server, and I know just how to fix it. > Now I have to go back to the others, because, on at least one of them, > useradd was not creating the mailbox. Gotta verify that's the case > and fix that. > > Thanks for the clue. No problem. IIRC, procmail runs as the recipient's user and group. I believe some systems have the procmail binary's set-group-ID bit set ("chmod g+s /usr/bin/procmail") which would make it run as group "mail". That'd get around the lack of a world-write bit set on /var/spool/mail. For the machines where it worked, see if that's true. procmail would show up "rwxr-sr-x", I think. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks at nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "Microsoft is a cross between The Borg and the Ferengi. - - Unfortunately they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to - - do their programming." -- Simon Slavin - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From redhat at buglecreek.com Fri Dec 5 23:38:38 2008 From: redhat at buglecreek.com (redhat at buglecreek.com) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:38:38 -0700 Subject: Fedora 8 CDs Message-ID: <1228520318.7765.1288537517@webmail.messagingengine.com> I need to find and download Fedora 8 in the cd version, not the dvd version. Can anyone point me in a direction? I seem to be only able to find the DVD on the Fedora site. Thanks From ricks at nerd.com Sat Dec 6 00:18:43 2008 From: ricks at nerd.com (Rick Stevens) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:18:43 -0800 Subject: Fedora 8 CDs In-Reply-To: <1228520318.7765.1288537517@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1228520318.7765.1288537517@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4939C4E3.5030000@nerd.com> redhat at buglecreek.com wrote: > I need to find and download Fedora 8 in the cd version, not the dvd > version. Can anyone point me in a direction? I seem to be only able > to find the DVD on the Fedora site. Whoo, boy. Be aware that F8 will be EOL'd in January. You should be using F9 or F10. F6 was the last Fedora available on CD. F7, F8, F9 and F10 are only available as DVD images or Live! images. For CD-only users, download one of the Live! images. They're CD-based and give you enough stuff to get up and running. From there, you can either install from a DVD ISO image on your hard drive or over the network from an FTP/HTTP server or Fedora repos. Again, F8 is soon to be history. The latest is F10. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks at nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Memory is the second thing to go, but I can't remember the first! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From micros50 at verizon.net Wed Dec 24 21:01:57 2008 From: micros50 at verizon.net (mylar) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:01:57 -0500 Subject: Fedora 8 CDs In-Reply-To: <4939C4E3.5030000@nerd.com> References: <1228520318.7765.1288537517@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4939C4E3.5030000@nerd.com> Message-ID: <1230152518.16062.54.camel@manhattan.ruffe.edu> On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 16:18 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: > redhat at buglecreek.com wrote: > > I need to find and download Fedora 8 in the cd version, not the dvd > > version. Can anyone point me in a direction? I seem to be only able > > to find the DVD on the Fedora site. > > Whoo, boy. Be aware that F8 will be EOL'd in January. You should be > using F9 or F10. > > F I'm still running Fedora 6 on my personal machine here and Fedora 9 on my Dad's machine. I'm planning on upgrading to F10 over the next week or so. Happy Holiday seasons to everyone out on the RH lists. John (mylar) -- email-> micros50 at verizon.net "I Speak Mathematics" From ramin.shariatian at ineo.com Wed Dec 24 21:03:51 2008 From: ramin.shariatian at ineo.com (ramin.shariatian at ineo.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:03:51 +0100 Subject: Ramin SHARIATIAN est absent(e). Message-ID: Je serai absent(e) ? partir du 22/12/2008 de retour le 05/01/2009. Je r?pondrai ? votre message d?s mon retour. From sam.peng at foxconn.com Fri Dec 26 07:02:11 2008 From: sam.peng at foxconn.com (sam.peng at foxconn.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 01:02:11 -0600 Subject: Sam Peng/USA/FOXCONN is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 2008/12/22 and will not return until 2009/01/09. I will be out of office during 12/22/08 to 1/9/09. If there is any production support need, please contact my back up Allen Lin ( Allen-yp-lin at foxconn.com ). Regards, Sam Peng Foxconn CMMSG NA IT - Fullerton, CA US Office# 17145253688*8124 , VoIP# 520-8124 US Mobile# 17148634015 IM: sjpeng at hotmail.com