| Summary: | qmail-1.03 suggested patches including security ones | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Rumen Yotov <rumen> |
| Component: | [OLD] Server | Assignee: | Qmail Team (OBSOLETE) <qmail-bugs+disabled> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | jakub |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Rumen Yotov
2005-08-14 00:31:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > Okay. The problem there is that Gentoo's qmail package is a hodgepodge of > unnecessary and buggy patches I though this was a definition of qmail, you blame Gentoo for this? What about asking the author to change the obnoxious license instead? ;p OK, qmail herd, enjoy this bug. :) I've been wondering how long it would take for this bug (have read the e-mail on the ML already). About the relaymxlookup-patch: I know it's not perfect. But it's not a security hole, more like a potential DoS. I wrote the patch because I've needed some secondary server to accept e-mails for all domains on the main server. Its functionality isn't enabled until you create control/relaymxlookup. So, as long as you know what you're doing, it isn't so much of a problem. Beside of that, how can Exim contain such a feature and not be yelled at "Insecure! Insecure!"? Or at least, I haven't ever read something like that. The webpage for the patch (might interest you and Charles Cazabon) is http://hansmi.ch/software/qmail. I'm interested in discussing this issue, especially if you've a better idea to make sure the secondary MX knows all rcpt-to-domains. And why did you not try qmail-1.03-r16? It contains alot of updated patches and fixes. See bug 40486 and bug 29485 and their associated bugs. Hi, First to say i like the way Gentoo does it's ebuild for qmail and can't critisize it in any way. Even think not all said things are 100% *true*. Now some thoughts: 1.Evidently the qmail license won't change anytime soon so this is the reality, people need/(will need) patches to achieve their goals; 2.Also think that the available USE-flags are quite enough as otherwise there will be more than a dozen. IMHO this patches just are applied to do their job, three can be disabled (SSL,CRAM,TLS before AUTH) + 2 more for qmail-1.03-r-16; 3.Had an idea but that only after posting the BUG - why not have a new package: mail-mta/netmail-1.05 with the corresponding patches - like a alt-qmail ;) 4.Some problems with current ebuild state could be the difficulty to make a custom-patched qmail-install (copy to overlay disable patches etc.); 5.Personally i only use qmail as my home-mail-server and don't need all the things, but like to play with it though ;). So in no need, but will try out the testing version (-r16). Had that running before (reinstall). Realize that it's getting quite difficult to work with such a mess (restrictive license, quite old initial code, too many patches, two or three for a function). But also had (bugs filed) compile problems with some of the accompaning packages Not complaining in any way, just wanna make things better,easier. PS: feel free to close this Bug as you wish, nothing critical IMO. Thanks. Rumen netqmail is in portage since months |
