Bug#925982: local_scan not invoked anymore

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#925982: local_scan not invoked anymore

Andreas Metzler-2
Package: exim4-daemon-heavy
Version: 4.92-1

----- Forwarded message from Graeme Fowler via Exim-users -----
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:08:04 +0000
From: Graeme Fowler via Exim-users
Subject: Re: local_scan_path change ?
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Newsgroups: gmane.mail.exim.user

Morning all

On 29 Mar 2019, at 09:54, Niels Dettenbach via Exim-users <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It seems local_scan.c ist not longer called / used in sa-exim setups since
> =exim 4.92 builds - tried that yesterday (own EXIM build on NetBSD). Until
> now i didn't find any time to investigate the changes in exim sources yet - so
> any tip / hint is welcome here too...ß)

Right at the top of the Changelog:

Exim version 4.92
-----------------

JH/01 Remove code calling the customisable local_scan function, unless a new
      definition "HAVE_LOCAL_SCAN=yes" is present in the Local/Makefile.

Additional information is in the default Makefile.

Graeme
----- End forwarded message -----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#925982: pretty useless without local_scan

Adam Borowski-3
Control: severity -1 important

(Justification: exim is nearly completely useless for receiving mails for
an Internet domain -- there's ~100 spams per day per address.)

I've wasted time concurrently coming up with Andreas' findings -- and
indeed, rebuilding with HAVE_LOCAL_SCAN=yes makes spam filtering work again.


Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Did ya know that typing "test -j8" instead of "ctest -j8"
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ will make your testsuite pass much faster, and fix bugs?
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#925982: pretty useless without local_scan

Andreas Metzler-2
On 2019-04-03 Adam Borowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Control: severity -1 important

> (Justification: exim is nearly completely useless for receiving mails for
> an Internet domain -- there's ~100 spams per day per address.)

> I've wasted time concurrently coming up with Andreas' findings -- and
> indeed, rebuilding with HAVE_LOCAL_SCAN=yes makes spam filtering work again.

Hello,

I am yet undecided whether it is better to hotfix this bug or do the
right thing and drop the dynamic local_scan patch and adding a
Breaks: sa-exim

sa-exim is dead upstream since 2006 and seems to be really broken
now. See
https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20180726.113354.6d03efde.en.html
and #879687

cu Andreas

--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#925982: pretty useless without local_scan

Marc Haber-2
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:08:53PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> I am yet undecided whether it is better to hotfix this bug or do the
> right thing and drop the dynamic local_scan patch and adding a
> Breaks: sa-exim
>
> sa-exim is dead upstream since 2006 and seems to be really broken
> now. See
> https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20180726.113354.6d03efde.en.html
> and #879687

I would vouch for the Breaks: _and_ a mention in the Release notes. Exim
is still Debian's default MTA, isn't it?

Greetings
Marc

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany    |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#925982: pretty useless without local_scan

Adam Borowski-3
In reply to this post by Andreas Metzler-2
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:08:53PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:

> On 2019-04-03 Adam Borowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > (Justification: exim is nearly completely useless for receiving mails for
> > an Internet domain -- there's ~100 spams per day per address.)
>
> > I've wasted time concurrently coming up with Andreas' findings -- and
> > indeed, rebuilding with HAVE_LOCAL_SCAN=yes makes spam filtering work again.
>
> I am yet undecided whether it is better to hotfix this bug or do the
> right thing and drop the dynamic local_scan patch and adding a
> Breaks: sa-exim

Well, but in that case, what are we supposed to use for spam filtering?

I did not have the time to look at alternatives. and probably same applies
to many other people for whom keeping a mail server running is not a primary
task.  Just "apt install exim4 sa-exim" is/was a nice instant setup,
requiring no maintenance other than some adjustments to handle whatever new
spam campaign some miscreants launched.

On today's Internet, a receiving MTA without spam filtering is simply not an
option.
 
> sa-exim is dead upstream since 2006 and seems to be really broken
> now. See
> https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20180726.113354.6d03efde.en.html

Haven't seen this -- and I'm using btrfs on all machines I control.

> and #879687

Seems like I have "chunking_advertise_hosts =" on my primary server but I
don't recall configuring it manually -- so no idea where it came from.
Installing buster's exim4 on a fresh container doesn't have this setting --
regression?


Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Did ya know that typing "test -j8" instead of "ctest -j8"
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ will make your testsuite pass much faster, and fix bugs?
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#925982: pretty useless without local_scan

Andreas Metzler-2
On 2019-04-04 Adam Borowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...]
> Well, but in that case, what are we supposed to use for spam filtering?

Hello,

Exim's built-in facility. http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-content_scanning_at_acl_time.html
[...]
> > and #879687

> Seems like I have "chunking_advertise_hosts =" on my primary server but I
> don't recall configuring it manually -- so no idea where it came from.
> Installing buster's exim4 on a fresh container doesn't have this setting --
> regression?

No, chunking did not look 100% ready when stretch was frozen which is
why we made a conservative decicion and and overrode upstream's decision
to enable it by default. It has proven stable since.

cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment