On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:23:26AM +0000, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > I want to bind in the uid numerically because that feels more secure -
> > > that is a paranoia argument.
> > Is it more than a gut-feeling? Many daemons work without hardcoding the
> > uid. (e.g. postfix does not, qmail OTOH does.) I am not trying to
> > second-guess you, just asking, you know this stuff, I don't.
> Partly gut feeling, and partly that, because of the way Exim is
> designed, new instances of Exim start up frequently. By having the uid
> hard-coded in the binary, you save having to look it up every time.
> However, how much this actually saves in practice, I don't know. Of
> course it depends on how the user information is kept - NIS, flat file,
> indexed file, etc...
> I have put this on the Wish List, but it may be a while before anything
> happens.
Either denying or implementing it. ;-)
I am going to think about trying get a hardcoded uid for exim:exim
reserved on Debian.
> I want to get a new, fully documented release out in a few
> weeks' time, and the documentation itself needs a lot of work.
I won't stop repeating that imho one of exim's greatest favours is its
documentation. ;-) Thanks.
cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
