On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, JF Martinez wrote:
> >
> > [ speaking for myself here, not my employer and so on ... ]
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, JF Martinez wrote:
> >
> > > > I disagree about no "MTA worth his salt," and sendmail certainly DOES
> > > > deliver mail to root.
> > > >
> > > > You can a
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 01:20:06AM +0200, JF Martinez wrote:
> This applies if upgrading individually. If I upgrade my entire
> distribution the warning will be lost somewhere in the install.log.
> Yes _I_ check but can you ensure all RedHat's customers check?
I can't. The problem is that you
Chris Garrigues wrote:
> The prevalence of your attitude is part of why the Internet is as unsecure (I
> don't care what my spell checker says, people are "insecure", networks are
> "unsecure") as it is today.
Sorry you feel that way; personally, I believe that my attitude is why you
have Linu
>
> [ speaking for myself here, not my employer and so on ... ]
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, JF Martinez wrote:
>
> > > I disagree about no "MTA worth his salt," and sendmail certainly DOES
> > > deliver mail to root.
> > >
> > > You can always create an alias yourself.
> > >
> >
> > I know it b
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 03:42:40AM +0200, JF Martinez wrote:
> I know it but there will be people who don't know about it, forget
> it or perhaps one day a person at RedHat makes a mistake and my alias
> file is overwritten with a vanilla one where root is not aliased.
After any install or upgrad
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Ihnat)
> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:28:39 -0500 (CDT)
>
> That's only partially true. The fact of the matter is that mail _will_
> go to root, and there's nothing wrong with that fact _per se_. I do
> NOT want someone else coding their idea of security into tools
JF Martinez wrote:
> I know it but there will be people who don't know about it, forget
> it or perhaps one day a person at RedHat makes a mistake and my alias
> file is overwritten with a vanilla one where root is not aliased.
You _do_ have regular backups, don't you?
> Everything you do as ro
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
> I posted a harmless script here a while ago; however, mail.redhat.com
> wouldn't resolve about then & some mail bounced.
>
> I'm trying again;-) Just try click on the attachment and see what happens.
> Prudence suggests you peruse it first;-)
Noth
> It is not inherently insecure to have mail delivered to root, because
> first of all, it is just text. If I as root _decide_ to interpret it as a
> script (by using a stupid MUA), then that's _my_ fault, not sendmail's.
It is, of course, sensible to test your MUA.
I posted a harmless script h
[ speaking for myself here, not my employer and so on ... ]
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, JF Martinez wrote:
> > I disagree about no "MTA worth his salt," and sendmail certainly DOES
> > deliver mail to root.
> >
> > You can always create an alias yourself.
> >
>
> I know it but there will be people w
>
> >
> > Someone noticed that kmail tries (and fails due to access rights) to
> > interpret scripts in mail and wondered about a Linux box being stopped
> > thanks to a scrpt beoing mailed to root. However no MTA worth his
> > salt (and that means sendmail isn't) would accept to send mail to
>
>
> Someone noticed that kmail tries (and fails due to access rights) to
> interpret scripts in mail and wondered about a Linux box being stopped
> thanks to a scrpt beoing mailed to root. However no MTA worth his
> salt (and that means sendmail isn't) would accept to send mail to
> root, only t
12 matches
Mail list logo
