postfix, procmail and SELinux - No Go

[Marc Schwartz (via MN)]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 20:55 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 14:25 -0500, Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 13:57 -0500, Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
> > > Just to be clear, I should leave or remove the mydcc policy?
> > 
> > Paul,
> > 
> > I am getting errors when building the dcc and razor policies:
> > 
> > dcc.if:23: duplicate definition of dcc_domtrans_cdcc(). Original definition on 23.
> > dcc.if:54: duplicate definition of dcc_run_cdcc(). Original definition on 54.
> > dcc.if:76: duplicate definition of dcc_domtrans_client(). Original definition on 76.
> > dcc.if:107: duplicate definition of dcc_run_client(). Original definition on 107.
> > dcc.if:129: duplicate definition of dcc_domtrans_dbclean(). Original definition on 129.
> > dcc.if:160: duplicate definition of dcc_run_dbclean(). Original definition on 160.
> > dcc.if:181: duplicate definition of dcc_stream_connect_dccifd(). Original definition on 181.
> > razor.if:101: duplicate definition of razor_common_domain_template(). Original definition on 101.
> > razor.if:197: duplicate definition of razor_per_userdomain_template(). Original definition on 197.
> > razor.if:218: duplicate definition of razor_domtrans(). Original definition on 218.
> > 
> > The modules do seem to build and install however. 
> > 
> > I do believe that I answered my own question above, in that the dcc
> > policy will not load with the mydcc policy loaded.
> > 
> > Current status:
> > 
> > # semodule -l
> > amavis  1.0.4
> > clamav  1.0.1
> > dcc     1.0.0
> > myclamscan      0.2.0
> > mypyzor 0.2.1
> > procmail        0.5.3
> > pyzor   1.0.1
> > razor   1.0.0
> 
> Did you do the restorecon of all your dcc and razor files/directories
> too (the .fc files should indicate where you'd expect to find things)?

Yep.  I actually use 'locate razor' and 'locate dcc', since several of
the paths listed in the .fc files are not present.

I also then ran a 'fixfiles check' which came back with no errors,
though as we have seen previously, that seems to be no guarantee of
anything...

  "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Marc