Warning: postfix-script

[dipeshmehta]

Hello,

I get following warnings in my 'daily mail report'

Warnings
--------
  postfix-script (total: 19)
         6   not owned by postfix: /opt/zimbra/data/postfix/./spool/pid/unix...
         4   not owned by postfix: /opt/zimbra/data/postfix/./spool/pid/inet...
         1   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/sender_bcc
         1   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/recipient_...
         1   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/recipient_bcc
         1   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/master.cf
         1   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/sender_bcc.db
         1   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/master.cf.in
         1   not owned by postfix: /opt/zimbra/data/postfix/./spool/pid/mast...
         1   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/main.cf
         1   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/data/postfix/spool

Do I need chown these files ? to which user name?

Thanks in advance,

Dipesh

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by infosyst

I'm going to leave the permissions alone unless someone explicitly says that I should change them.

The permissions should not be changed.

Originally Posted by infosyst

If this is correct and they should NOT be changed, then we should probably file a bug report since that means that the warnings are erroneous.

There's no need for a bug report, the messages are informational, nothing else.

[infosyst]

I am also receiving these messages (see below) and would like to know if I should change ownership. The owner of most of this stuff is the zimbra user. The owner of /opt/zimbra/data/postfix/spool is postfix, and probably should not be changed based on what I found in THIS THREAD (zimbrafr.org).

I'm going to leave the permissions alone unless someone explicitly says that I should change them. If this is correct and they should NOT be changed, then we should probably file a bug report since that means that the warnings are erroneous.

Warnings
--------
  postfix-script (total: 8)
         2   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/main.cf
         2   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/data/postfix/spool
         2   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/master.cf
         2   not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.7.2z/conf/master.cf.in

[infosyst]

Originally Posted by phoenix

There's no need for a bug report, the messages are informational, nothing else.

I suppose they are, but it seems misleading to me as it could easily cause admins to start tweaking their permissions because they mistakenly believe that they are set incorrectly.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by infosyst

I suppose they are, but it seems misleading to me as it could easily cause admins to start tweaking their permissions because they mistakenly believe that they are set incorrectly.

They would soon find that it was a mistake, Zimbra won't work if the permissions are changed. Isn't an Admin supposed to investigate a problem before making changes to a production system?

[LMStone]

This situation has been around with Zimbra for at least as long as we have been running Zimbra (since 4.0.3). For many years prior to that, we used Postfix as our MTA behind Horde, Squirrelmail, and a bunch of other systems, and we still use Postfix boxes as SmartHosts in front of Exchange servers.

IMHO, this is more of a Postfix "issue" than a Zimbra issue. It's Postfix, not Zimbra, that is complaining about Postfix's files not being owned by root at a particular moment in time.

I take your point that this kind of data in the log files may be inappropriately relied upon by inexperienced admins, but if you run, for example, dmesg on a freshly booted Linux box you will see all kinds of "failures" which could easily be (wrongly) interpreted as being much more serious than this one.

There is a very active Postfix discussion list if you wanted to follow up there. They can be a bit prickly however if you haven't searched the list before posting!

Hope that helps,
Mark