Sendmail and mimedefang, help.
Wayne Sierke
ws at au.dyndns.ws
Sun Jun 26 06:38:53 UTC 2016
On Mon, 2016-06-20 at 13:32 +0200, Bernt Hansson wrote:
> Hello list!
>
> I'm trying to setup mimedefang and sendmail on a replacement machine.
>
> This is how I start mimedefang
>
> mimedefang -c -k -p /var/spool/MIMEDefang/defang.pid -m
> /var/spool/MIMEDefang/multiplexor.sock -U mailnull
>
> The multiplexor
>
> mimedefang-multiplexor -U mailnull -s
> /var/spool/MIMEDefang/multiplexor.sock -l
>
> Getting this in /var/log/maillog
>
> mimedefang-multiplexor[13560]: started; minSlaves=1, maxSlaves=2,
> maxRequests=500, maxIdleTime=300, busyTimeout=120, clientTimeout=10
> mimedefang-multiplexor[13560]: Starting slave 0 (pid 13561) (1
> running):
> Bringing slaves up to minSlaves (1)
> mimedefang[13564]: MIMEDefang alive. slavesReservedForLoopback=-1
> AllowNewConnectionsToQueue=0 doRelayCheck=0 doHeloCheck=0
> doSenderCheck=0 doRecipientCheck=0
> mimedefang[13564]: Multiplexor alive - entering main loop
>
> I've tried differnt users like daemon, smmsp, operator, nobody and
> even
> sane.
> But no luck.
>
> Getting an e-mail, sendmail respond with this
>
> sm-mta[11617]: u5JM06Qf011617: Milter (mimedefang): local socket
> name
> /var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock unsafe
>
>
> Permissions on /var/spool/MIMEDefang/
>
> drwx------ 2 mailnull mailnull 512 20 Jun 13:28 MIMEDefang
>
> So what can I do?
>
Hi Bernt,
I recall running into this problem some years ago but I think the
mimedefang port was improved quite a bit since then in providing better
defaults and run-time configuration options.
The only immediate difference I can find on my current mail system is:
drwx--x--- 28 mailnull mailnull 1024 Jun 26 15:50 /var/spool/MIMEDefang/
It's possible that is a remnant of a "chmod g-r[w]" in order to address
the "mimedefang.sock unsafe" issue, although I'm only guessing at that
and it may not be related or relevant at all.
If you have installed the mimedefang port you could try starting it
using "system" methods e.g. "service mimedefang [one]start" or similar
and see if there's any difference in behaviour?
Wayne
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list