Summary: SELinux is preventing /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail "module_request" access. Detailed Description: SELinux denied access requested by sendmail. It is not expected that this access is required by sendmail and this access may signal an intrusion attempt. It is also possible that the specific version or configuration of the application is causing it to require additional access. Allowing Access: You can generate a local policy module to allow this access - see FAQ (http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/selinux-faq-fc5/#id2961385) Please file a bug report. Additional Information: Source Context system_u:system_r:sendmail_t:s0 Target Context system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 Target Objects None [ system ] Source sendmail Source Path /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail Port <Unknown> Host (removed) Source RPM Packages sendmail-8.14.3-8.fc12 Target RPM Packages Policy RPM selinux-policy-3.6.32-59.fc12 Selinux Enabled True Policy Type targeted Enforcing Mode Enforcing Plugin Name catchall Host Name (removed) Platform Linux (removed) 2.6.31.9-174.fc12.i686 #1 SMP Mon Dec 21 06:24:20 UTC 2009 i686 i686 Alert Count 36 First Seen الثلاثاء 22 كانون الأول 2009 16:55:44 Last Seen الخميس 24 كانون الأول 2009 19:03:28 Local ID 70870d07-e6e1-4aa8-9874-ddd39336ad35 Line Numbers Raw Audit Messages node=(removed) type=AVC msg=audit(1261677808.665:8): avc: denied { module_request } for pid=1401 comm="sendmail" scontext=system_u:system_r:sendmail_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 tclass=system node=(removed) type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1261677808.665:8): arch=40000003 syscall=102 success=no exit=-97 a0=1 a1=bfd87c40 a2=5afe08 a3=6239c0 items=0 ppid=1 pid=1401 auid=4294967295 uid=51 gid=486 euid=51 suid=51 fsuid=51 egid=486 sgid=486 fsgid=486 tty=(none) ses=4294967295 comm="sendmail" exe="/usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail" subj=system_u:system_r:sendmail_t:s0 key=(null) Hash String generated from selinux-policy-3.6.32-59.fc12,catchall,sendmail,sendmail_t,kernel_t,system,module_request audit2allow suggests: audit2allow is not installed.
Did you disable ipv6?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 550372 ***
yes i did