Philip Hazel writes:
> On 23 May 2003, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> > then I don't see the kernel message. Just to make things even more
> > obscure. I can simplify that down to
> > require verify = sender
> >
> > and I still see the same result *unless* the sender is a locally defined
> > address (ie no DNS etc). There are no entries in the acl prior to that
> > which would prevent that acl being run.
>
> Hmm. Odd. There shouldn't be any subprocesses used in verifying a remote
> address. There might be for a local address if .forward were used. That
> is precisely the wrong way round.
I recently tracked down a similar bug to the pam_unix libraries. Are
there any PAM calls on this code path?
Peter
