Bug 73994

Summary:	mail-filter/qmail-scanner - make qmail-scanner-queue.pl call another qmail-queue replacement on env settings
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Perolo Silantico <per.sil>
Component:	Current packages	Assignee:	Net-Mail Packages <net-mail+disabled>
Status:	RESOLVED UPSTREAM
Severity:	normal	CC:	carter.smithhart, kensington
Priority:	Normal
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---
Attachments:	qmail-scanner.QSCANQUEUE.patched-1.24-r1.tar.gz qmail-scanner.QSCANQUEUE.patched-1.24-r1.2004-12-12.tar.gz

Description Perolo Silantico 2004-12-10 04:19:59 UTC

Integrating domainKeys with qmail is only possible if qmail-queue is not called directly by qmail-scanner but by qmail-dk. See Bug 40486. So qmail-scanner-queue.pl should read the queue program to call from environment variable QSCANNERQUEUE much like qmail-scanner itself is called by qmail-smtpd.

A patch and its integration in qmail-scanner-1.24-r1.ebuild is attached to next comment. It adds a small line to read the env variable QSCANNERQUEUE if available and if the specified binary is executable by the effective UID.

Comment 1 Perolo Silantico 2004-12-10 04:21:56 UTC

Created attachment 45675 [details]
qmail-scanner.QSCANQUEUE.patched-1.24-r1.tar.gz

a new ebuild package containing a patch to qmail-scanner-queue.pl to evaluate
QSCANNERQUEUE environment variable. 

The additional patch file is:
qmail-scanner/files/qmail-scanner-queue.pl_QSCANNERQUEUE.patch

Comment 2 Perolo Silantico 2004-12-11 16:17:32 UTC

Created attachment 45781 [details]
qmail-scanner.QSCANQUEUE.patched-1.24-r1.2004-12-12.tar.gz

Sorry. Old patch does not work with perl-taint-mode. I have thought the error
calling the other program has nothing to do with perl-tainting but with
permissions on the app to call. 

The New version of the patch works properly with perl "-T" mode as used with
qmail-scanner.

Comment 3 Carter Smithhart 2006-01-08 16:34:20 UTC

Just out of curiosity.. Do you think this should be an upstream fix instead of a gentoo fix?

Comment 4 Michael Palimaka (kensington) gentoo-dev

2013-06-23 14:20:03 UTC

(In reply to Carter Smithhart from comment #3)
> Just out of curiosity.. Do you think this should be an upstream fix instead
> of a gentoo fix?

Probably upstream. @qmail, any thoughts?

Comment 5 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev

2016-05-06 08:22:50 UTC

Please report this directly to upstream (if still valid with 2.08)