On 2022/04/21 10:23, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Anyone fancy giving an explicit ok for this? Preferably someone who
> uses spamd?
Ah I missed that jturner@ already did, sorry for the noise!
>
> On 2022/04/15 22:00, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > jturner had a problem with this, here's a diff on top of what was
> > committed.
> >
> > - I think the first line is superfluous as /etc/rc.d/rc.subr has some
> > special case for this (and I think this maybe responsible for a problem
> > which jturner ran into)
> >
> > - look for the pflog interface passed in flags and init that
> >
> > I think this is probably correct within the bounds of how spamlogd
> > currently works but some tests would be appreciated (as would
> > any improvements to the chicken scratches)
> >
> > Index: spamlogd
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/etc/rc.d/spamlogd,v
> > retrieving revision 1.5
> > diff -u -p -r1.5 spamlogd
> > --- spamlogd 11 Apr 2022 09:32:20 -0000 1.5
> > +++ spamlogd 15 Apr 2022 21:00:10 -0000
> > @@ -9,11 +9,13 @@ daemon="/usr/libexec/spamlogd"
> > rc_reload=NO
> >
> > rc_pre() {
> > - [[ ${spamd_flags} != NO && ${spamd_black} == NO ]] && return 1
> > + pflog=$(echo $daemon_flags | sed -En 's/.*-l *(pflog[0-9]+).*/\1/p')
> > + pflog=${pflog:-pflog0}
> > +
> > if pfctl -si | grep -q Enabled; then
> > - ifconfig pflog0 create
> > - if ifconfig pflog0; then
> > - ifconfig pflog0 up
> > + ifconfig $pflog create
> > + if ifconfig $pflog; then
> > + ifconfig $pflog up
> > else
> > return 1
> > fi
> >
>
