> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derrick 'dman' Hudson [mailto:dman@dman.ddts.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 1:17 AM
> To: Cory Daehn
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Re: Restricting Aliases for Majordomo Lists
>
> Oh! You're not talking about the same thing I was. I
> thought you meant that (eg)
> the-list-outgoing@??? was mentioned in the
> headers and that's what you didn't want. (if that address is
> restricted to majordomo only it isn't a problem) Now it sounds like
> the entire list membership is mentioned in the headers, and
> the worm can send directly to those people. That is a bad
> thing (regardless of worms). I don't know why exim would be
> doing that ... can you send a sampling of exactly what those
> headers look like?
No, I *AM* :)
I sent the headers in a previous message...
-----Original Message Full Headers-----
Envelope-to: lormar@???
Received: from cali-3.pobox.com ([64.71.166.116])
by landau.labnet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
id 17I6XA-0004Fz-00
for <lormar@???>; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:43:29 -0500
Received: from cali-3.pobox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by cali-3.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E018A3E6BA
for <lormar@???>; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: cdaehn@???
Received: from landau.labnet.com (landau.labnet.com [205.238.148.10])
by cali-3.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 938D43E69D; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:42:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from majordomo by landau.labnet.com with local (Exim 3.22 #1
(Red Hat Linux))
id 17I1Fc-0006ti-00
for <1023882439@???>; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:05:00 -0500
From: "Texas Cooking Newsletter" <txmailbox@???>
To: <txcooking-list@???>
Subject: Texas Cooking Newsletter, June 2002
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:02:17 -0500
Organization: Texas Cooking Online
Message-ID: <019f01c211d6$b4a54a00$9865fea9@GORN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A0_01C211AC.CBCF4200"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: owner-txcooking-list@???
Precedence: special-delivery
Reply-To: txmailbox@???
Status: O
And as for the aliases:
txcooking-list: "|/usr/lib/majordomo/wrapper resend -l txcooking-list
txcooking-list-outgoing"
txcooking-list-outgoing:
:include:/usr/lib/majordomo/lists/txcooking-list
That's what I have in my aliases file.... which makes majordomo process
it with the wrapper, change the headers, etc, check the restricted list,
then send the message to txcooking-list-outgoing@??? (I removed
the all-numeric one because it was confusing) majordomo checks
/usr/lib/majordomo/lists/txcooking-list.auth to make sure the e-mail
sending the message is in the allowed list, then thecks the first line
of the message for the password. If both are true, then it sends the
message on to the outgoing after processing it. So basically, I just
have to secure the outgoing aliases. I'm still not sure if Majordomo is
starting exim as root(0) or majordomo(123) And YES, I made
majordomo.majordomo = 123.45 ... since it was available. ;-)
> Who knows, exim 4 may compile easier. Another pro for moving
> to exim 4 now is you won't have to re-learn some things later
> since you'll be starting out with the current stuff.
okay, I'll download & compile it... who knows, maybe it'll work. Only
problem is, like I said before, I don't like using non-RPM packages (eg
tarballs) since they seem to break a lot of stuff in RPM-based distros.
That plus a lot of programmers still haven't adopted the standard file
hierarchy
> | Mandrake comes with Sendmail & postfix... neither of which I want
to
> | use.
>
> I've heard that postfix is good and fast. Since RH 7.3 now
> ships postfix instead of sendmail (and RH is what my boss
> uses) I signed up on the postfix list for a while to learn
> more about it. It is all table based -- you define lots of
> tables mapping from one thing to another, and then specify
> which tables are used where. It is very different from
> exim's style of config. Postifx has some features exim
> doesn't have (built-in strict_7bit_headers , standards
> compliant 8BITMIME support), and exim has some features
> postfix doesn't have (local_scan, SMTP-time ACLs that allow
> data checking as well).
>
> | exim was recommended by tami@??? since that's what they
> use so I
> | went ahead and switched.
>
> I would have to say, though, that postifx and exim are both good
> choices. (better than qmail or sendmail :-))
> He who finds a wife finds what is good
> and receives favor from the Lord.
> Proverbs 18:22
No thank you, not interested in wives now or anytime in the forseeable
future.
Besides, I'm already married to Pentium 4 and she and my cat are very
jealous of others. ;-)
