[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#209116: exim daemon does not restart after last two security upgrades

Ray Miller <raym@herald.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:04:29PM +0100, Mark Baker wrote:
>> The startup script for the daemon only runs it if it isn't running from 
>> inetd, in order that you don't get both trying to run. I suppose I could 
>> check that inetd is running, though that would only work if exim starts 
>> before inetd (which by default it will, but I wouldn't want to rely on 
>> that always being the case, especially since there's no obvious reason 
>> why it should matter).

> I don't much like the way the exim init script tries to do this, and
> prefer to leave the decision firmly in the hands of the system
> administrator.  I'm currently testing a patched init script (patch
> attached FYI) and some defaults in /etc/default/exim:

> QUEUE_ARGS="-q30m"

> Of course, if you're using this and running inetd, you have to make
> sure the exim maintainer scripts don't try to start exim from inetd,
> and might also want to disable the queue-runner cron jobs.

> Ideally, these choices would be managed by debconf, and the package
> postinst obey the debconf settings.

I don't see any bonus in managing these little details with debconf.

> I haven't looked at the exim4 packages, so apologies if you've already
> thoguht through these issues and come up with a cunning solution!

The exim4 init-script contains a similar test as exim3 for inetd,
which might have been a good or bad idea - I don't know for sure but
changing it now would require all the brave souls who had hand-edited
inetd.conf to make exim4 run with inetd to also edit the init-script.

The init-script supports a default file, supporting your options and
more (actually it is that complicated to prepare for mailfilter
interaction). There is nothing cunning about it, though. ;-)
              cu andreas
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_

Reply to: