Your message dated Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:17:43 GMT
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line cyrus21-imapd has been removed from Debian, closing #231092
has caused the Debian Bug report #231092,
regarding cyrus21-imapd: luser_relay patch
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.)
--
231092: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=231092
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: cyrus21-imapd
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Here's a patch that Carsten Hoeger wrote against cyrus-imapd, which
works pretty much like postfix's luser_relay. See the original
announcement:
<http://www.irbs.net/internet/info-cyrus/0208/0665.html>
And here's the revised version, also included in this report:
<http://mirror.mcs.anl.gov/suse-people/choeger/SLOX/cyrus-imapd-2.1.16-SLES8/source/luser_relay.patch>
Last year, I asked Carsten about the reliability of his patch, and
here's his comforting reply:
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:17:26 +0200
From: Carsten Hoeger <[email protected]>
To: Frederic Briere <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FYI: luser_relay patch for cyrus-imapd 2.1.x
On Wed, Sep 17, Frederic Briere wrote:
> Hi! I desperately need a luser_relay option in cyrus, and I saw the
> patch you posted on info-cyrus a year ago. Since I'm running cyrus on a
> production server, I wanted to know if you had any dire warnings about
> the patch before I apply it. (Maybe you've just found out it causes
> terrible harm every full moon, or that it doesn't apply cleanly
> anymore.)
We are shipping this patch built into cyrus-imapd on SuSE Linux and our
business products as SLOX.
The first version I sent to the list had bugs. I attached the version I
currently use to this mail.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (50, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.1
Locale: LANG=en_CA, LC_CTYPE=en_CA
--- imap/lmtpengine.c.orig 2002-08-29 10:54:18.000000000 -0700
+++ imap/lmtpengine.c 2002-08-29 10:56:01.000000000 -0700
@@ -1103,6 +1103,8 @@
{
char *dest;
char *user;
+ char *luser_relay = NULL;
+ int has_luser_relay = 0;
int r, sl;
address_data_t *ret = (address_data_t *) xmalloc(sizeof(address_data_t));
@@ -1145,14 +1147,34 @@
}
*dest = '\0';
+ luser_relay = config_getstring("lmtp_luser_relay", NULL);
+
+
+ if( luser_relay ) {
+ if( !verify_user(luser_relay, ignorequota ? -1 : msg->size, msg->authstate) ) {
+ has_luser_relay = 1;
+ }
+ }
+
r = verify_user(user, ignorequota ? -1 : msg->size, msg->authstate);
- if (r) {
+
+ if( r == IMAP_MAILBOX_NONEXISTENT && has_luser_relay ) {
+ ret->user = xstrdup(luser_relay);
+ }else if( r == IMAP_MAILBOX_NONEXISTENT && !has_luser_relay ) {
/* we lost */
free(ret->all);
free(ret);
return r;
}
- ret->user = xstrdup(user);
+ if (r && r != IMAP_MAILBOX_NONEXISTENT ) {
+ /* we lost */
+ free(ret->all);
+ free(ret);
+ return r;
+ }
+
+ if( r != IMAP_MAILBOX_NONEXISTENT )
+ ret->user = xstrdup(user);
ret->ignorequota = ignorequota;
--- man/imapd.conf.5.orig 2002-08-29 11:04:19.000000000 -0700
+++ man/imapd.conf.5 2002-08-29 11:03:35.000000000 -0700
@@ -367,6 +367,9 @@
source.
.IP "\fBallowplainwithouttls:\fR no" 5
Allow plain login mechanism without an encrypted connection.
+.IP "\fBlmtp_luser_relay:\fR <no default>" 5
+Send mail to mailboxes, which do not exists, to this user. NOTE: This must
+be an existing local mailbox name. NOT an email address!
.SH SEE ALSO
.PP
\fBimapd(8)\fR, \fBpop3d(8)\fR, \fBlmtpd(8)\fR, \fBtimsieved(8)\fR,
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.1.18-5.2+rm
The cyrus21-imapd package has been removed from Debian so we are closing
the bugs that were still opened against it.
For more information about this package's removal, read
http://bugs.debian.org/432576 . That bug might give the reasons why
this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements.
Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question.
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Kind regards,
--
Marco Rodrigues
--- End Message ---
