[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: recent version

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 15:22 +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 04:02:19PM +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
> > I see a few issues here:
> > 
> > 1. it seems that couple recent changes in proto/cf/aliases.cf where not
> > commited?  Or cvs does not pull the right version for me?
>   "cvs update -dAP" ?

sure thing :)

> At least I get everything..  (And md5sum:s do match..)
> The 'make install' alone won't be enough, you must run also  post-install
> (just in case you forgot it..)

Now I see that the "real-(.*)" thing just went to another place.

But I was also referring to my previous patch that apparently(?) got
lost.  It is not at all obvious, and it even looks wrong.  But in fact
it seems to do the right thing, because in the local channel, $user and
$host are almost the same thing, but slightly different.  Namely,
"$host$domain"  version works wrong on "chained" alias expansion, if
$DOMAIN_AWARE_GETPWNAM is defined.  This is from my message of 16 Mar:


Either I sent it wrong, or you applied it wrong, or I do not understand
anything ;-)

This is what I think is needed:

RCS file: /cvsroot/zmailer/proto/cf/aliases.cf,v
retrieving revision 1.54
diff -u -r1.54 aliases.cf
--- proto/cf/aliases.cf 11 Mar 2004 22:54:01 -0000      1.54
+++ proto/cf/aliases.cf 16 Mar 2004 13:18:05 -0000
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@
        user=$(user $quad)

        if [ "$DOMAIN_AWARE_GETPWNAM" = "1" ] ; then
-               sysuser="$host@domain"
+               sysuser="$user$domain"

Not only '@' should be '$' (which is fixed), but also 'host' should be
'user'.  At least this is how it works for me.

> > 3. It seems that socket interface to the contentfilter got broken?  I'd
> > prefer to use it with my zmscanner (forking "zmscanner -i 0" does not
> > seem to work right now).
> It should work just like before.  The relevant code was moved from
> contentpolicy.c  to subdaemon-ctf.c   and has new function names,
> but otherwise it is unchanged.
> Of course I have only tested the "fork and run" variant myself, not
> named socket one.

I'll investigate it and report.


This is a digitally signed message part