Your message dated Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:40:01 +0200
with message-id
<caatjj0+f9fbewud2rlor+zvkqm7bnhensgcpksjkmrpr2ge...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#863876: Add a Distribution specific banner
has caused the Debian Bug report #863876,
regarding Add a Distribution specific banner
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
863876: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=863876
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: exim4
Version: 4.89-2
Severity: wishlist
Hi exim4 maintainers,
first of all I want to thank you for your great work!
I came by merging exim4 for the next Ubuntu release recently and doing that
for the seconds time I realized that the only difference people carry on
since ages (it seems) is a Distribution specific SMTP banner.
Now I checked and the patch works for Debian just as well as it is getting
it at configure time via lsb_release.
I couldn't believe that something like 15 different people never asked, but
maybe I searched for the wrong terms when looking for this discussion
already taking place in the past.
At least the times I've touched it that was a diff always easy to maintain
- worst case do a 'quilt refresh' once and it is around and working since
several years; so it should be low-to-no effort to be kept around and
maintained.
On one hand it would for you give Debian more explicit visibility on some
of the internet scapper tools that generate e.g. market share based on
server headers (not so importan, but at least A reason).
And on the other hand it would allow Ubuntu to make exim4 a sync, which is
easier to maintain (clearly more my benefit than yours I know).
Therefore I'd ask you if you'd be willing to take the attached (2) patches
into Debian?
--
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd
From 7473f90007f6e88b85421ad42ae2b4e77f104683 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 11:32:39 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Show Distro specific SMTP banner.
Patch to add the Distribution name to the default SMTP banner.
That allows e.g. market researchers to detect the distribution running a
server more easily (nobody wants to be in the "other" bucket).
Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]>
---
debian/patches/fix_smtp_banner.patch | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
debian/patches/series | 1 +
2 files changed, 53 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 debian/patches/fix_smtp_banner.patch
diff --git a/debian/patches/fix_smtp_banner.patch b/debian/patches/fix_smtp_banner.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c891540
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/patches/fix_smtp_banner.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+Description: Add EXIM_DISTRIBUTION var to display it on the SMTP banner
+Origin: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-s-server-app-banner-updates
+Author: Yolanda Robla <[email protected]>
+Last-Update: 2015-07-06
+
+--- a/src/globals.c
++++ b/src/globals.c
+@@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@
+ uschar *smtp_active_hostname = NULL;
+ BOOL smtp_authenticated = FALSE;
+ uschar *smtp_banner = US"$smtp_active_hostname ESMTP "
+- "Exim $version_number $tod_full"
++ "Exim $version_number " EXIM_DISTRIBUTION " $tod_full"
+ "\0<---------------Space to patch smtp_banner->";
+ BOOL smtp_batched_input = FALSE;
+ BOOL smtp_check_spool_space = TRUE;
+--- a/src/config.h.defaults
++++ b/src/config.h.defaults
+@@ -204,4 +204,6 @@
+ #define SC_EXIM_ARITH "%" SCNi64 /* scanf incl. 0x prefix */
+ #define SC_EXIM_DEC "%" SCNd64 /* scanf decimal */
+
++#define EXIM_DISTRIBUTION
++
+ /* End of config.h.defaults */
+--- a/scripts/Configure-config.h
++++ b/scripts/Configure-config.h
+@@ -23,6 +23,12 @@
+ if [ "$1" != "" ] ; then MAKE=$1 ; fi
+ if [ "$MAKE" = "" ] ; then MAKE=make ; fi
+
++# exporting distribution to use it in smtp banner
++if test -x /usr/bin/lsb_release && lsb_release -si; then
++ export EXIM_DISTRIBUTION=\"$(lsb_release -si)\"
++else
++ export EXIM_DISTRIBUTION=\"\"
++fi
+ $MAKE buildconfig || exit 1
+
+ # BEWARE: tab characters needed in the following sed command. They have had
+--- a/src/exim.h
++++ b/src/exim.h
+@@ -596,5 +596,9 @@
+ # undef DISABLE_DNSSEC
+ #endif
+
++#ifndef EXIM_DISTRIBUTION
++ #define EXIM_DISTRIBUTION ""
++#endif
++
+ #endif
+ /* End of exim.h */
diff --git a/debian/patches/series b/debian/patches/series
index cc060c5..a794af4 100644
--- a/debian/patches/series
+++ b/debian/patches/series
@@ -9,3 +9,4 @@
67_unnecessaryCopt.diff
70_remove_exim-users_references.dpatch
78_Disable-chunking-BDAT-by-default.patch
+fix_smtp_banner.patch
--
2.7.4
From b72c71f8d49a35a767b09a439902bb8a817677cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:12:15 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Build-Depend on lsb-release for Distro smpt-banner
To be able to automtically generate the Distribution name at configure
time add lsb-release as Build-Depends.
Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]>
---
debian/control | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
index 16c00d3..39a64ee 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9), po-debconf, docbook-xsl, xsltproc,
lynx-cur | lynx, docbook-xml, libpcre3-dev, libldap2-dev, libpam0g-dev,
libident-dev, libdb5.3-dev, libxmu-dev, libxt-dev, libxext-dev, libx11-dev,
libxaw7-dev, libpq-dev, default-libmysqlclient-dev,
- libsqlite3-dev, libperl-dev, libgnutls28-dev, libsasl2-dev
+ libsqlite3-dev, libperl-dev, libgnutls28-dev, libsasl2-dev, lsb-release
Package: exim4-base
Architecture: any
--
2.7.4
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Andreas Metzler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Therefore I'd ask you if you'd be willing to take the attached (2)
> patches
> > into Debian?
>
> Hello Christian,
>
> you did not miss any discussion on the patch. I am aware of its
> existence, though. I had seen the change in Ubuntu and intentionally
> chose to not pull it into Debian. I just do not see a benefit. And given
> a choice of patching upstream and not patching it I will stay with
> upstream unless there is a very good reason for patching.
>
> cu Andreas
>
Ok I'm totally fine with that, it was worth to ask at least.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your opinion.
I wonder if that patch would be acceptable upstream - with a switch to
configure maybe.
Well that will end up on the tail of a very long backlog.
That said, closing this Debian bug for now.
--- End Message ---
