Re: [exim4debian] Re: Debian-exim - blech!
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:07:52PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 09:48:43AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>> "mail" is and always has been a standard system account:
>
>"mail" is also the account that owns the mail spool, hence all MUAs
>run sgid mail per policy. Running the MTA as mail as well would mean
>that the MTA's queue would have to belong to mail as well, giving MUAs
>read access to the MTA's queue, which is a significant security risk.
>
>This is the reason why we decided to run exim4 with a non-"mail"
>account.
>
>> Of course your argument applies equally to "Debian-exim" - it might be
>> assigned to a user; it's quite as likely as that "mail" might be so
>> assigned.
>
>I beg to differ here. It is quite more unlikely to re-use an account
>with a name _that_ ugly.
>
I don't think you make a valid case for the name change. It is an
admittedly really ugly name, and it seems it was given such a name to
force some kind of policy decision on a non-issue, which seems to me
like extortion.
This is what my system might look like if everyone followed your naming
convention:
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
root 1 0.0 0.0 1272 432 ? S Sep13 0:26 init [2]
root 2 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 0:00 [keventd]
root 3 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SWN Sep13 0:07 [ksoftirqd_CPU0]
root 4 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SWN Sep13 0:05 [ksoftirqd_CPU1]
root 5 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 3:57 [kswapd]
root 6 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 0:00 [bdflush]
root 7 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 0:49 [kupdated]
root 114 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 1:43 [kjournald]
root 115 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 0:01 [kjournald]
root 116 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 1:46 [kjournald]
root 117 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 3:15 [kjournald]
root 140 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SW Sep13 0:00 [eth0]
daemon 148 0.0 0.0 1384 296 ? S Sep13 0:00 [portmap]
root 462 0.0 0.0 2004 676 ? S Sep13 0:00 /usr/sbin/inetd
root 473 0.0 0.0 2184 864 ? S Sep13 0:00 /bin/sh /usr/bin/mysqld_safe
Debian- 521 0.0 2.1 68520 19532 ? S Sep13 0:01 [mysqld]
Debian- 531 0.0 2.1 68520 19532 ? S Sep13 0:12 [mysqld]
Debian- 532 0.0 2.1 68520 19532 ? S Sep13 0:08 [mysqld]
Debian- 535 0.0 2.1 68520 19532 ? S Sep13 0:00 [mysqld]
nobody 615 0.0 0.1 3656 1032 ? S Sep13 0:02 [proftpd]
Debian- 9949 0.0 0.1 12848 948 ? S Sep18 0:15 /usr/lib/postgresql/bin/postmaster
Debian- 9951 0.0 0.1 13840 1432 ? S Sep18 0:03 postgres: stats buffer process
Debian- 9952 0.0 0.1 13060 1496 ? S Sep18 0:24 postgres: stats collector process
Debian- 9870 0.0 0.3 13940 2892 ? S Sep20 0:25 /usr/bin/perl /usr/lib/sympa/bin/sympa.pl -m
Debian- 16447 0.0 0.1 6668 1776 ? S Sep20 0:08 [exim4]
Debian- 18144 0.0 0.2 13364 2548 ? S Sep21 0:00 postgres: sympa sympa 127.0.0.1 idle
Debian- 28902 0.0 0.6 76848 5912 ? S 06:33 0:00 [apache]
Debian- 28905 0.0 0.8 77100 7288 ? S 06:33 0:03 [apache]
Debian- 7716 0.0 0.7 76960 6760 ? S 09:23 0:00 [apache]
Debian- 7767 0.0 0.2 7020 2332 ? S 09:24 0:00 [exim4]
Debian- 7769 0.0 0.2 6824 2380 ? S 09:24 0:00 [exim4]
Not too pretty, and kind of useless!
I agree with the OP.
Reply to: