FAQ Question

[William Burns]

Daniel Gercke wrote:

> Yes there is a reason. We have different Domains, some of them are 
> using Mailscanner an some not. If a message arrives with mixed users 
> of these domains sometimes mails are not scanned. So i want to split 
> the recipients.

Sorry... I meant to ask: Is there a reason you wouldn't want to upgrade 
sendmail?
I assume the answer is no.

> Is there a way to find an updated sendmail for redhat7.3 ? yum didn´t 
> find anything?

I've got a procedure for porting other RedHat sendmail packages back to 
earlier versions of RedHat.
It's part of a larger procedure for loading a certain troublesome 
machine I've got at work:
http://www.coredump.us/wiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdeSCB2

Note: make sure you save/make-copies of anything that you need first, 
like your current versions of sendmail.mc and sendmail.cf

Here are the bits you need:

 > 5) Upgrade + recompile sendmail ("borrowed" from RH8.0)
 > cd /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES tar xzvf sendmail*.gz
 > cd ../SPECS
 > vi sendmail.spec
 >  (change errata fron "80" to "73")
 > rpm -ba --target i686 sendmail.spec
 > (compiles sendmail from source... takes a few minutes)
 > rpm -e --nodeps sendmail
 > (removes previous version of sendmail)
 > rpm -Uvh /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i686/sendmail-8.12*

You *should* be able to "borrow" a sendmail version from an even later 
RedHat version, like RedHat9, or one of the fedora versions.

You'll need a sendmail source package (SRPM) which you should be able to 
find somewhere under here:
ftp://updates.redhat.com/9/en/os/i386
for RedHat9.... and other places on the same site for some other 
versions of RedHat.

-Bill

> Daniel Gercke
>
> programmierung . system managements
>
>
> William Burns schrieb:
>
>> Daniel:
>>
>> Sorry, bad news...
>>
>> I can confirm that queue groups are a new sendmail feature as of
>> 8.12.0.beta5
>> http://www.sendmail.org/8.12.0.Beta5.html
>>
>> If you want this tip to work, I think you'll have to upgrade your copy
>> of sendmail.
>> Is there any reason that you wouldn't want to?
>>
>> -Bill
>