On Fri, 2002-03-29 at 16:00, Eric Sisler wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Eric Sisler wrote: > > > > Does anyone have mailman running with postfix using the RedHat supplied > > > RPM's? I have postfix-1.1.5-2 & mailman-2.0.8-1 and I'm nearly there, but > > > I'm running into the dreaded "wanted GID X, got GID Y error". > > > >This should be an faq at this point. See this thread for the details, but > >basically you just have to put the mailman aliases in a seperate map file > >and set the gid of the generated .db file to 'mail'. > > > >http://www.prairienet.org/library/redhat/redhat-list/2002/03/msg01016.php > > I looked at the thread and in fact most of my setup is identical to > yours. I did change the ownership on the mailman-aliases.db to no avail. > > [snip] > > >The error says it expects gid=12. Give it to em! (on the .db file) > > And therein lies the rub. It isn't the permissions on the .db file, it's > mailman's wrapper script that's causing the problem: > > Mailman mail-wrapper: Failure to exec script. WANTED gid 12, GOT gid > 99. (Reconfigure to take 99?)
mmh. I don't believe I changed the wrapper at all : [root@rabbit /root]# rpm -V mailman S.5....T c /var/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py S.5....T c /var/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.pyc SM5....T /var/mailman/data/pending_subscriptions.db > > If I change postfix's "default_privs = mail" then the script runs fine, but > I'm wondering if this presents a security risk. There aren't many > files/directories owned by mail, so maybe this doesn't. > > I realized after sending the first message that although I started with the > RH provided postfix RPM, I'm now using the one maintained by Simon Mudd, > located at http://www.ea4els.ampr.org/~sjmudd. Are you using the stock > RedHat RPM? I wonder if that's part of the issue. Nope, mine is from a sjmudd rpm > Also, do you have "DELIVERY_MODULE" set to "Sendmail" or "SMTPDirect" in > /var/mailman/Mailman/Default.py (or possibly > /var/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py). I'm using the default of "SMTPDirect" as > the documentation says the other option isn't "secure". so am i. > At any rate, it does appear to be working, I'm just not sure about the > possible security implications. I don't know why it works for me, but not you. Sorry charles _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
