You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2014/01/25 15:13:28 UTC
[Bug 6995] New: specify user to fall back instead of nobody
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
Bug ID: 6995
Summary: specify user to fall back instead of nobody
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: spamc/spamd
Assignee: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Reporter: uhlar@fantomas.sk
when spamd is provided with a user name that is not found, spamd falls back to
hardcoded "nobody".
Since "nobody" has no home directories on many systems (and it's not wise to
create it), the admin should be able to choose other user that would be used as
default, so he could maintain kind of default options, BAYES database etc.
Please provide option for specifying different user than "nobody" to fall back.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6995] specify user to fall back for spamd instead of nobody
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
--- Comment #7 from Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu> ---
okay, good, its just that as a gentoo maintainer i would not change raw files,
but provide needed changes in ebuild to go virtual_user or system_user where it
cant be enabled both at the same time
dont know how other distors handle it, but this was my thought about it
note: gentoo devs does not change tarballs, unless its really needed, and if it
is it will be a patch to show the problem it solves :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6995] specify user to fall back for spamd instead of nobody
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.4.1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #6 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> ---
(In reply to Benny Pedersen from comment #5)
> okay my fault, is this still a spamassassin problem ?
It's a feature request not a problem.
> would it not be mainer packagement way to setup spamd as running on non
> privileged user if only virtual users is needed in spamc ?
That's a good thought. Make the terms nobody defined at the top of spamd.raw
for a maintainer of packages to change rather than add a configuration option.
If a user wanted to change, they could modify spamd.raw (or spamd) and just
change the config var in the script.
Regards,
KAM
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6995] specify user to fall back for spamd instead of nobody
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kmcgrail@pccc.com
Summary|specify user to fall back |specify user to fall back
|instead of nobody |for spamd instead of nobody
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6995] specify user to fall back instead of nobody
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
RW <rw...@googlemail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rwmaillists@googlemail.com
--- Comment #1 from RW <rw...@googlemail.com> ---
Do you mean the unprivileged user in "spamd -u", or the username passed to
spamd by spamc?
Either way I don't see why it would be useful, it sounds like an option for
something that shouldn't happen in the first place.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6995] specify user to fall back instead of nobody
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |uhlar@fantomas.sk
--- Comment #2 from Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> ---
The latter case. I'm using spamass-milter that passes destination username to
spamc (in this case, after expantion by sendmail -bv), and the destination user
may not exist (e.g. it's alias to remote address).
I do not think that spamass-milter should take care about the username, since
it
would require new code into it.
I believe there may be other cases where the username does not exist.
While I may agree that this is a situation that should not happen, the fallback
is already implemented and 'nobody' is not always a good idea as I mentioned
before.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6995] specify user to fall back for spamd instead of nobody
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
--- Comment #5 from Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu> ---
okay my fault, is this still a spamassassin problem ?
would it not be mainer packagement way to setup spamd as running on non
privileged user if only virtual users is needed in spamc ?
http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/README.sql-mysql.txt
is spamd/spamc not supporting db based defaults for say nobody ?
just trying to understand why its a bug report here ?
http://www.tnpi.net/wiki/SA_per-user_preferences
i could remember i tryed get it to work, but at that time i used amavisd so the
spamd/spamc was hard to get working for me
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6995] specify user to fall back for spamd instead of nobody
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |me@junc.eu
--- Comment #3 from Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu> ---
if spamd is started as nobody, it cant run as user_prefs settings, so it only
root to fallback to
saame reason that apache have one single thread that is owned by root in top,
and other spawned as apache, even postfix have one master that runs as root,
but services is never run as root
all services binding to lowports under 1024 will have to start as root and
dropprivs after to be secure
just a reminder to not make this not work here
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6995] specify user to fall back for spamd instead of nobody
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6995
--- Comment #4 from RW <rw...@googlemail.com> ---
Benny, this has already been clarified. It's the user passed via the
spamc-spamd protocol, not the user that spamd starts-up with or permanently
drops down to with spamd -u.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.