Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Mail : Discussion :

Ownership issues?

(Page 1 of 2)
> >
Quote Reply
Ownership issues?
What should be the correct ownership of incoming.pl?

The backup copy is under nobody and the working copy is under userid.

Both are available since the day the install was successfully completed by GT. Could this ownership issue be causing the inconsistency wrt purge by admin?

Also what about the ownership issues of the different directories in /data/msgs tree and also who owns the actual mesages in the tree... userid or nobody?

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
Hi,

Silence is Killing.....and sometimes annoying to an extent that if an irate user like me posts something not liked by "satisfied users" (which i was when i was the only user using the mail account on my install) then the whole essence of the thread is lost and it spirals into a vicious circle.....

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
If there are any ownership problems you'll see permission errors in your error log. If you don't see errors then things are probably ok.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Ownership issues? In reply to
Hi Paul,

Probably OK. "Probably"

If i do a test install from http i see all nobody (which even documentation says so "probably"). I did confirm this on a test installation recently. On working installation the ownerships are a mixed bag. Somethin nobody, something userid.

I am perplexed. I was looking for a technical explanation. Installation from http, no editing of files by me from ssh and yet the permissions are not in line with what documentation about installing from http says.

Well if there are no error reported does it mean everything is OK. So why talk of nobody ownership issues while installing from web and userid while installing from command prompt.....

And yes i see a problem. Purge messages does not delete the mesasges from disk but deleted the same from database.

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
If i do a test install from http i see all nobody

Yep thats correct.

Quote:
On working installation the ownerships are a mixed bag. Somethin nobody, something userid.

They will vary depending on how they were/are installed/edited.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
They will vary depending on how they were/are installed/edited.

Installed from http:
Did not edit it so do not know how they were edited for fixing certain issues. userid cannot change the ownership of nobody of the files so it has to be from root. Now if that is the case, then why as it done is the question. meaning incoming.pl does not run under nobody ownership (which in my case is userid for example).

Hope my query is clear....

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
What should be the correct ownership of incoming.pl?

It depends upon installation method and server setup. The correct ownership is such that either the mail server user (if using piped mode) or the user who is running the cron job (if using shared mode) has access to run this program.

Quote:
Also what about the ownership issues of the different directories in /data/msgs

You will have a mix of ownerships if the person running incoming.pl != the user the webserver runs as. This is because when a user sends a message from the browser, or downloads messages from a remote pop, the webserver will insert the message onto disk as the user it runs as. When incoming.pl runs and retrieves new mail, it will insert it on disk as the user it runs as.

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: [Alex] Ownership issues? In reply to
Hi,

I had installed from http.

However, find it running as userid though it should be nobody (that's how webserver is running as) if documentation is to be believed.

It was not changed by me. The message delivery issues were attended to by GT after my installation failed to get the inbound messages and send bcc messages etc etc.

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
However, find it running as userid though it should be nobody (that's how webserver is running as) if documentation is to be believed.

If you installed from web, and files are owned by your own userid, then that means you are using a cgi wrapper like suExec or cgiwrap.

If your ISP installed this wrapper during an active installation and you now have a mix of files owned by nobody and your own userid, then you'll need to get them to chown the files back to yourown userid.

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: [Alex] Ownership issues? In reply to
Hi,

No cgi wrapper/ no suEXEC. Just checked on FileMan test install to check on what you mentioned and the http install goes the nobody ownership route and shell install goes the userid ownership route.

So with mixed ownerships (no wrapper/suEXEC) what is the corrective action and which ownership? userid or nobody. The original installation was done http (not sure about what followed on intervention by GT...subsequently to get the issues working )

Thnx

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
I'm confused, I thought you just said it was running as your own userid:

Quote:
I had installed from http.

However, find it running as userid though it should be nobody

as to:

Quote:
So with mixed ownerships (no wrapper/suEXEC) what is the corrective action and which ownership?

corrective action for what? The script will work fine with mixed userid's, and is designed this way as unfortunately that's how the majority of ISP's set up their server (generally not a good idea).

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: [Alex] Ownership issues? In reply to
incomin.pl in under userid and it is running that way since it was handed over by GT.

However, the mystery of messages not being deleted from disk (but deleted from database) in "Purge Messages" and the users not being deleted from disk but deleted from database (in case of Admin/Delete/Validate Option) i was trying to find out possible reasons...

So it is wrt above that i enquired about the ownership of certain files and scripts which are not under expected nobody (incoming.pl etc)

Thnx

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [Alex] Ownership issues? In reply to
Hi Alex,

My reason of being confused is:

Since I installed from http, why should certain files and replaced files (by GT) have ownership userid and not nobody. Please note:
  • No wrapper, suEXEC. The Service Provider (i am on dedicated server) would not just install anything without a request being made from my side.
  • Currently if i install say FileMan from http, all ownerships are nobody as expected and if installed from shell then it is userid.


Basically my concern is twofold:
  • Admin/Delete/Validate user does not delete the user from disk, though it deletes from database. otherwise delete user functions from admin. But the Admin/Delete/Validate option fails to delete the user from disk.
  • Purge Messages (Trash for eg) does not remove the message from disk. Empty folder etc from admin deletes the message from disk.


If the above two are not functioning as expected then there must be certain packages/scripts etc which could be responsible for this. I have not tried the "Purge Users" utility fearing a catastrophe experienced by certain users earlier.

Could it please be known as to what .pm/script files is needed to be sent to you. Part of admin utility is non functional, even on a test install with latest version which i tried recently.

Thnx

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
why should certain files and replaced files (by GT) have ownership userid

Well if they were replaced by GT it's likely they did so using ssh which will change the userid/group to your username.

Last edited by:

Paul: Jun 7, 2003, 6:46 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Ownership issues? In reply to
OK. Do you think it was proper to have been left like that (ownership). GT had su and account access while resolving the initial teething problems. Maybe at this stage the ownership issue may sound trivial since "Probably" most part is working except for the contentious "Purge" utility....And just a request, consider that not every user is just interested in arguments while he / she is posting certain FACTS.

If I had no access to GM admin on GT's side (demo), I think I would never had been able to point out what I was talking about the date issue on templates. And i am sure the problem could never have been duplicated if it were left like that and i would have kept banging my head against a wall trying to figure out....that "Probably" something is wrong with my server setup/ownership etc etc and never reach the root cause of the problem. That was just a small case and please do not make it a point of justifying access to server. This just proved that there are things which have never been envisaged or noticed (for quite somtime) till yesterday. A problem can never be solved if it is made out to be a duel of egos/alterego/superego which bases actions on some "Past" conduct. That's like acting with vengance... Isn't it?

What about "Purge" Which .pm/script files need to be given back to check for malfunction. At least a checklist could be given in order to resolve the problem if the access is not possible, unless of course it is something of a trade secret which prompts for the need to access the server everytime there is a case of malfunction reported.

Why is _purge_messages_folder not deleting files from disk when a "equivalent of that" is empty folder etc is working at user level (from admin and also user side). "Probably" Purge is getting messed up when the delete is on a Global scale (spanning multiple domains) rather than user level empty folder (from admin side) operation. Same is true for admin/delete/validate option where a user never gets deleted from disk with this option.

So (though i should not be concluding), admin control at user level is operational. It is when it goes at Global Level (spanning multiple domains) that it gets lost......In fact from what is happening, apparently it seems that Purge Operation is just clearing the database and not the disk.

Any Expert Opinion......More time needs to be constructively spent on this "Probably"

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
Do you think it was proper to have been left like that (ownership).

Yes. I think perhaps you are believing this to be a more serious issue than it actually is. It is quite normal to have mixed ownerships. The ownerships will vary depending on whether files were edited via the web of ssh.

Quote:
And just a request, consider that not every user is just interested in arguments while he / she is posting certain FACTS.

Nobody is arguing with you.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Ownership issues? In reply to
As usual, a user is always wrong. OK all i can say is I agree that it is OK to have leave the ownership like the way it has been. But what about Purge?

Can there be ever a discussion on the point raised so often....

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
As usual, a user is always wrong.

Well, I can tell you that you are completely correct and that it's awful your permissions were left mixed...if that's what you want to hear.

As for the purging, that's up to the staff to answer.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
Well, I can tell you that you are completely correct and that it's awful your permissions were left mixed...if that's what you want to hear.

I have been keeping my ears open for a solution ( a non invasive surgery type of a solution) on Purge and other Admin Issues since last 90 days....Frown

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
It's been said before...if GT can't reproduce it and you won't give them server access, there's nothing they can do.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Ownership issues? In reply to
Please try to understand the issue. The "Custom Template" date issue also would never have been duplicated I am sure. Hope you get the point.

Four weeks of server access including su was enough to do all the testing of all components. If first free installation support includes testing of all features and is not just limited to getting the mails in and out of the system....

There would be some checking after Accessing the server. What's that checking that needs to be done. If that can be spelt out then i am sure i can send an output of all those tests/ checks

Anup

Last edited by:

anup123: Jun 7, 2003, 8:57 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Ownership issues? In reply to
Hi Paul,

Do you have any knowledge of any solution to a problem which has indeed been duplicated at GT:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/...come%20email;#229077

I still have no solution almost six months down the line...

Anup
Quote Reply
Re: [anup123] Ownership issues? In reply to
Hi Anup,

You will have a mix of file ownerships because:

1. Messages that can are sent via the browser (a user composing and sending a message) will be created as the web server user.

2. Messages that are sent via incoming.pl running will be created as the user the cron job is running as (your userid).

This is normal behavior and Gossamer Mail expects this as this is how 90% of ISP's run things. I don't believe this is related to your purge problem, as it's meant to be that way. Ownership of non data files (some of the .pm's or .cgi or .pl) won't affect the purge as they are never deleted by the purge, however you may have trouble upgrading via the web if it can't overwrite some of those files so you may want to chown them all to user nobody.

So I don't think this is related to your purge problem at all.

Again, I know you don't want to do this, but if you give us access to your server, we will be able to address these issues quickly as we will be able to walk through on your installation to see what's going wrong. I can guarantee you we have looked into this, and spent a considerable amount of time trying to reproduce the problem you described. We have tried purges under numerous situations and it always removes them from disk. We've even emailed other clients that we have access to the server to see if they have had any problems purging, and they have reported back no. I'm not sure what else to try at this point.

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: [Alex] Ownership issues? In reply to
Hi Alex,

I am sort of torn between two lovers. My service provider has put in some restrictions and i am sure if you were my service provider (ded ser) and in case you put this temporary restriction on server access i am sure you would expect me to follow it.

Again, i have not yet given up. I again did a fresh test install (APOP mode) just to check on the purge issue.

Pulled in 60 mails from a remote account and then did 2 messages at a time purge from trash (delete->trash->purge_trash).

Readings I am only giving the relevant portions of the consistency.pl:

Start After pulling in 60 messages:

Messages in database: 60 ...... 0 messages were on disk and not in the database

Messages in database: 58 ..... 5 messages were on disk and not in the database

Messages in database: 56 ..... 9 messages were on disk and not in the database

Messages in database: 54 ..... 13 messages were on disk and not in the database

Messages in database: 52 ..... 17 messages were on disk and not in the database

Messages in database: 50 ..... 22 messages were on disk and not in the database

Then simply purged all messages in on the system (50remaining messages)

Messages in database: 0 ..... 185 messages were on disk and not in the database

Then checked the /data/msgs tree:

The details are at http://gcoe.org/msgs.txt

The 185 count is perfect if each of the mesages are counted.

They are definitely not removed frpm the disk and the databse is cleaned up. The 185 count is also perfect. Also the 60 msgs pulled in count is also ok. 185 seems to be coming up from the txt/html part , attachments etc....

That should possibly give some clue as regards the number which is counted as being on disk....

Any clues.

Anup

Edit--

BTW: This is version 2.1.1 of GM and not 2.1.0 which is there on working installation.

Last edited by:

anup123: Jun 7, 2003, 12:54 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Ownership issues? In reply to
Quote:
The ownerships will vary depending on whether files were edited via the web of ssh.
I edited a file owned by nobody logged in as su from ssh. The ownership after editing remained nobody. So editing doesn't change ownership unless specifically changed from chown
Wink

Anup
> >