Re: [exim] SPF not working in Exim 4.91 ?

Startseite
Nachricht löschen
Nachricht beantworten
Autor: Mike Tubby
Datum:  
To: Odhiambo Washington
CC: exim users
Betreff: Re: [exim] SPF not working in Exim 4.91 ?

On 16/01/2019 20:21, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 18:26, Mike Tubby via Exim-users
> <exim-users@??? <mailto:exim-users@exim.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 15/01/2019 10:21, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
>     > On 15/01/2019 09:54, Mike Tubby via Exim-users wrote:
>     >> Can someone point me in the right direction?
>     > Presumably your build didn't actually include SPF. Check
>     > the "Support for" line from "exim -bV".  If it's not there,
>     > check you have a consistent set of source files and that
>     > you didn't try and build on top of some previous version.

>
>     I did build on a previous version that had:

>
>     EXPERIMENTAL_SPF=yes

>
>     In Local/Makefile

>
>     I changed it to:

>
>     SUPPORT_SPF=yes

>
>     but it didn't work possibly because I just did a "make; make install"
>     ... I have now performed:

>
>     make clean
>     make makefile
>     make
>     make install

>
>     and it fixed it.

>
>
> Great!
>
>
>     However, I noticed two other issues:

>
>
>     *1. Double increment of build numbers*

>
>     I only get even-numbered compile numbers due to what looks like a
>     double
>     increment:

>
>     root@relay1:~/exim-4.91# make install
>     /bin/sh scripts/source_checks
>     `Makefile' is up to date.

>
>     make[1]: Entering directory '/home/mike/exim-4.91/build-Linux-x86_64'
>     *>>> version 4.91 #9
>      >>> version 4.91 #10*

>
>
> I have always never bothered about the compile numbers. Are they
> important in a way??
>

It would be nice if the compile number incremented once each time the
code was built ... its sort of what its for ;-)

As it is currently running 'make' or 'make install' seems to perform a
double increment, well at least it does for me :-!


>
>      >>> exicyclog script built
>      >>> exinext script built
>      >>> exiwhat script built

>
>     *2. Warning for unused return in usr1_handler*

>
>     GCC compiler generates a warning for unsied return codes in
>     usr1_handler:

>
>     gcc exim.c
>     exim.c: In function ‘usr1_handler’:
>     exim.c:242:1: warning: ignoring return value of ‘write’, declared
>     with
>     attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
>       (void)write(fd, process_info, process_info_len);
>       ^
>     gcc expand.c

>
>     I have created a fix and sent a separate email with a proposed patch.

>
>
> Aha. Why don't you try the 4.92RC and see if the same issue exists,
> and give a patch
> as well. I am saying that because we already started looking ahead -
> towards 4.92.
>

Yep, relay2.thorcom.net is now running 4.92-RC4 and the same issue exists.

Below is a more compact version of the hack, erm I mean 'patch' ;-)

root@relay2:~/exim-4.92-RC4/src# diff exim.c-orig exim.c
247,250c247,252
< if (fd < 0) return;
<
< (void)write(fd, process_info, process_info_len);
< (void)close(fd);
---
> if (fd > 0)
>   {
>     /* hack to avoid GCC warning for unused result */
>     ssize_t dummy1 = write(fd, process_info, process_info_len);
>     int dummy2 = close(fd);
>   }


Regards

Mike


>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Odhiambo WASHINGTON,
> Nairobi,KE
> +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223
> "Oh, the cruft.", grep ^[^#] :-)