On 20/02/16 11:02, Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
> Think like a apartment. Your outer door is of course closed and locked, but
> your inner doors are always open.
We leave it at "agree to disagree".
To me your comparison tells me what the problem is. It also doesn't take
the inhabitants into account.
in Skjöldebrand
Skickat: den 20 februari 2016 10:26
Till: postfix-users@postfix.org
Ämne: Re: SV: access permissions 101
On 20/02/16 02:05, Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
> Everytime I need multiple processes to access the very same file and those
> processes has interlocks that prevent them from run
ains is something super-sensitive.
>
>
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: Jim Reid [mailto:j...@rfc1035.com]
> Skickat: den 20 februari 2016 01:40
> Till: Sebastian Nielsen
> Kopia: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Ämne: access permissions 101
>
>
>> On 19 F
On 02/19/2016 08:05 PM, Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
>
> Yeah, I agree that actually, only 644 is required on that config
> file. But why get so angry when someone 666's a file to just get
> things working? Its not like a list of banned spam domains is
> something super-sensitive.
>
Maybe this makes
x27;s a file to just get things working?
Its not like a list of banned spam domains is something super-sensitive.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Jim Reid [mailto:j...@rfc1035.com]
Skickat: den 20 februari 2016 01:40
Till: Sebastian Nielsen
Kopia: postfix-users@postfix.org
Ämne: ac
> On 19 Feb 2016, at 23:52, Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
>
> but if you're hosting for example a mail server for a company, and only you
> as a sysadmin has shell access to the server, its no danger 666'ing files
> that throw permission errors. Then the file isn't really "world writable",
> since
