Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 00:11:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Leslie Mikesell" <les@mcs.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: v4.0beta018 x86 SVR4.2 binary distribution
> command line like the script tells you. It's working now as
> long as I run hfaxd standalone. If I let inetd start it I get
> a message about not being able to create dev/null (no leading /).
> Is it supposed to work that way?
>
> I'm allways starting hfaxd(1M) from the script in /etc/rc2.d/
> and running it this way it doesn't need any setuid-bits. I've
> removed these bits from hfaxd(1M), faxq(1M), faxqclean(1M) and
> faxgetty(1M). If you want to start hfaxd(1M) from the inetd
> you should chmod(1) it to 4755 w/ owner root. Please note that
> hfaxd(1M) does a chroot(2) to the spooling area and tries to
> create "dev/null", "dev/tcp" and "etc/netconfig" below (that's
> why there was no leading "/" in the message.
That makes sense. I'll run it standalone on the machine that
actually sends a lot of faxes, but I have a couple of others
where I mainly want to run faxgetty to handle inbound data
calls because it is more robust than the native ttymon. Hfaxd
will run rarely, if ever, so it should be more efficient to
use inetd.
> On UnixWare 2.0x one *must* not set setuid-bits on these processes
> because they will loose the priveleges on the first setuid(2) call.
I've given up on Unixware and 4.2 in general (the permission scheme
has gotten too wierd) and am trying to move to Linux. But I have
some programs that require sysvr4 and some machines with Digiboard
C/X cards.
....
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
FAQ Index
Q330: Experience from using HylaFAX regarding sending 1000 per day?