------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139
--- Comment #32 from David Woodhouse <dwmw2@???> 2010-01-05 07:19:12 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> > I'm having trouble seeing the benefits of listing modules explicitly in
> > the config file, certainly. Although all we really need to overcome my
> > _objection_ to it is set the default behaviour to be loading all
> > available modules, but still add a config option which lets you list
> > them by name. That way, upgrades would still work fine without modifying
> > the config.
>
> Agreed, seems like a great solution to allow the pa^Wsecurity-conscious to
> explicitly specify which modules they want to load, without making Exim less
> usable for everyone else :)
That's a reasonable concern, to a certain extent. I suspect we should at least
be checking that the lookup directory isn't writable by any user or group other
then root/exim.
My main concern about this patch is portability. I've just looked over it
again, and I don't see any reason why it should cause problems on legacy
systems as long as they're not actually attempting to build dynamically
loadable modules.
If we can make the dynamic lookups work on at least one system other than
modern GCC then I'd be a little happier. The .c.so: rule probably wants to be
provided by the OS makefile, and in fact it should be .c.$(DLLEXT): rather than
assuming .so.
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
