On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:08:53PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2019-04-03 Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> 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? ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀