On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:59:03PM +0200, Günter Grodotzki wrote: > Wow.. ok > > antispam_backend = mailtrain should be replaced with antispam_backend = pipe > > I do not get what your problem is though. Maybe you feel cool that you > can "contain" information from others - which should not be the "debian > way" in any way.
Uhm ... I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. But you filed a critical bug claiming this package was broken, which it isn't. Then you claimed: > This used to work with the stable (wheezy) package but ever since I > upgraded it to backports (wheezy) it fails to work. I am confident that > this is only a minor version incompatibility issue and I am glad that > there is still someone active behind this project. ... which isn't at all true either. So for the benefit of anyone who might stumble over this report later, I noted that, so they hopefully won't be led up the garden path by it. > To answer your question, there are three (I'm sure there are more) > versions of "dovecot-antispam": ... and ... this is just wrong too. > http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-antispam-plugin/ (the official version) > http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/Projects/dovecot-antispam (the original > version) > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/ron/dovecot-antispam.git/ (debian > / your version) There is the version Johannes wrote and maintains, which we currently ship, and always have. And there is an unmaintained fork, which you appear to have been burned by, didn't report you'd installed, and now claim to be somehow "official". > You version is not referenced at dovecot.org and I just found it by > chance via the bugtracker. There is no "my version", aside from the packaging, and patches which always get forwarded to Johannes ... > You had twice the chance to give a simple "ehm wrong backend - check the > docs" but each time you failed and instead bloated your ego. Which I ... told you to do in the very first reply. > In any case, good software (as the official version does) will actually > give a hint "mailtrain not supported" instead of yours just crashing the > whole daemon. You mean like this (which is also unchanged since the dawn of time): tmp = getenv("BACKEND", getenv_data); if (tmp) { if (strcmp(tmp, "crm114") == 0) cfg->backend = &crm114_backend; else if (strcmp(tmp, "dspam") == 0) cfg->backend = &dspam_backend; else if (strcmp(tmp, "pipe") == 0) cfg->backend = &pipe_backend; else if (strcmp(tmp, "spool2dir") == 0) cfg->backend = &spool2dir_backend; else { debug(&cfg->dbgcfg, "selected invalid backend!\n"); exit(3); } } else { debug(&cfg->dbgcfg, "no backend selected!\n"); goto error; } Now if you'll excuse me, my bloated ego has more important things to attend to than trying to help someone who footgunned themselves and now wants to angrily blame me for that. There is no bug here except user error, and my mistake of trying to point that out for you instead of just closing this summarily and getting on with other urgent work. I still don't know if you just forgot you installed something random from somewhere else, or deliberately omitted that to have someone else try to debug this for you, but if this is the reward for my effort at figuring that out for you, then I don't actually care anymore ... Ron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
