Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!medar!jbertoia From: jbertoia@medar.com (Jeffrey A. Bertoia) Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush Subject: Re: SCO UNIX and MMDF (Was: Patch #3 for Mush 7.2) Message-ID: <1991May25.150741.914@medar.com> Date: 25 May 91 15:07:41 GMT References: <9105230730.AA19087@cse.ogi.edu> <596@sherpa.UUCP> Organization: Medar, Inc. Farmington Hills, MI Lines: 45 In article <596@sherpa.UUCP> rac@sherpa.UUCP (Roger Cornelius) writes: >In the recently posted mush patch #3 for 7.2: > >> + If you are using SCO UNIX 3.2 and the MMDF "submit" program gives you >> + trouble because of file permissions, define M_EXECMAIL to use the >> + execmail program instead. >Why should this require a patch to mush? If you're using SCO UNIX >and the MMDF "submit" program gives you trouble because of file >permissions, then shouldn't you fix MMDF's file permissions. The >solution has been posted several times to various groups. I agree! >cd /usr/mmdf >su mmdf -c "./checkup -p" 2>&1 | more >follow the recommendations it makes >I've been using mush on SCO UNIX (first 3.2.0, now 3.2.2) since >February 90, and have always used "submit". Other than the "sendmail" >variable stuff, I see no reason for this part of the patch. Instead, >why not include instructions with mush for fixing MMDF's permissions >on SCO UNIX. My situation is similar. . . It took me quite a while to originally sort out the problems. I didn't havve the 'real' mmdf docs at the time and SCO's were less than wonderful. Once I got it running it's worked reliably ever since. Why did SCO ever use execmail??? That's what I'd like to know. Anyway, once execmail is taken out of the picture, there are some interesting side effects. Mmdf authorization now works on the local posting host as doccumented. Also it is my understanding that SCO will be removing execmail in future releases. jeff -- Jeffrey A. Bertoia Medar, Inc. ...!uunet!medar!jbertoia 38700 Grand River Ave. jbertoia@medar.com Farmington Hills, MI 48335