Re: [vchkpw] disable_external_relay [PATCH]
Dear Tonino,
Thanks a lot for the info. In my case the password is stored in MySQL. A
further hunt provided me the following:
The following options are bit flags in the gid int field (pw_gid) with the
int values stored.
-u ( set no dialup flag ) -- 64
-d ( set no password changing flag ) -- 1
-p ( set no pop access flag ) -- 2
-s ( set no smtp access flag ) -- 2048
-w ( set no web mail access flag ) -- 4
-i ( set no imap access flag ) -- 8
-b ( set bounce mail flag )-- 16
-r ( set no external relay flag ) -- 32
-a ( grant qmailadmin administrator privileges)-- 4096
-0 ( set V_USER0 flag )-- 128
-1 ( set V_USER1 flag )-- 256
-2 ( set V_USER2 flag )-- 512
-3 ( set V_USER3 flag )-- 1024
For Multiple settings the flags' values are added.
Devendra Singh
At 05/12/03 14:38 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
vmoduser store this flag within the user record (either in .cdb or MysQl
or LDAP, depending on your configuration).
It's in the gid field.
Tonino
At 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 +0530, Devendra Singh wrote:
Dear Tonino,
Earlier when I had put the disable_smtp into .qmailadmin-limits, it
still allowed to relay the users. When I did use the vmoduser to set the
disable_smtp flag, it worked. But, where did the vmoduser store this flag
info. I could not locate it.
May some expert out there listening, may guide us.
Devendra Singh
At 05/12/03 13:48 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Devendra,
I'm still with an old version, and my domain limits are in
.qmailadmin-limits, within the domain directory.
I don't know if this is still valid for new version. Give a look at your
Changelog and README files (andpost the result).
Ciao,
Tonino
At 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 +0530, Devendra Singh wrote:
Dear Tonino / Tom,
In between the whole expert discussion the user level curious question
BTW, where is this user's limits info stored in case of non-mysql
limits? got lost.
Please, let us know.
Devendra Singh
At 04/12/03 14:32 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
thanks for your clear explanation.
However, don't you think that kind of things should be discussed in
the general list instead of development list?
I feel that development list should deal with implementation, how
to develop, how to improve code, while functionalities should be
discussed with end-users (or production users), that are interested in
functionalities, and don't care about implementation.
I'm really amazed when I discover a changed feature and see that it's
been done by developers without talking with end-users.
Ciao,
Tonino
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 10:05 AM, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
sorry if I may be out of logic, just a fast look at the patch.
Here's how it works.
pw_gid is the user's limits.
if the user has V_OVERRIDE set, that's all they get.
otherwise, the domain limits are IN ADDITION to the user's limits.
For example:
If domain limit says no IMAP and user limit says no SMTP; user
doesn't have access to IMAP or SMTP.
Change domain limit from no IMAP to no POP. Now user limit becomes
no POP or SMTP.
We discussed this on the development list. Perhaps we need to
explain it better in the documentation.
Is it correct to keep using user flags if override is off?
Yes.
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
if user not overriding domain limits
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
using mixed limits from user and domain.
Correct.
Would it be more direct to use only domain limits in such a case?
No. If you do it that way, you can't impose additional limits on a
single user in the domain (or, for example, add qmailadmin admin access).
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
else use user limits.
Correct. If V_OVERRIDE is set, or the limit lookup fails, it just
uses the user limits.
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Here's the patch to fix the domain limits problem. It's in CVS
now, and will be in the next release (which I'll make by the end of
the week). Hopefully the email gateways won't totally screw the file up...
[snip]
Thanks for including an entire copy of the patch in your response.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Interazioni di Antonio Nati
http://www.interazioni.it [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/03
---
Outgoing mail is certified
Re: [vchkpw] disable_external_relay [PATCH]
Devendra,
I'm still with an old version, and my domain limits are in
.qmailadmin-limits, within the domain directory.
I don't know if this is still valid for new version. Give a look at your
Changelog and README files (andpost the result).
Ciao,
Tonino
At 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 +0530, Devendra Singh wrote:
Dear Tonino / Tom,
In between the whole expert discussion the user level curious question
BTW, where is this user's limits info stored in case of non-mysql
limits? got lost.
Please, let us know.
Devendra Singh
At 04/12/03 14:32 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
thanks for your clear explanation.
However, don't you think that kind of things should be discussed in the
general list instead of development list?
I feel that development list should deal with implementation, how to
develop, how to improve code, while functionalities should be
discussed with end-users (or production users), that are interested in
functionalities, and don't care about implementation.
I'm really amazed when I discover a changed feature and see that it's
been done by developers without talking with end-users.
Ciao,
Tonino
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 10:05 AM, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
sorry if I may be out of logic, just a fast look at the patch.
Here's how it works.
pw_gid is the user's limits.
if the user has V_OVERRIDE set, that's all they get.
otherwise, the domain limits are IN ADDITION to the user's limits.
For example:
If domain limit says no IMAP and user limit says no SMTP; user doesn't
have access to IMAP or SMTP.
Change domain limit from no IMAP to no POP. Now user limit becomes no
POP or SMTP.
We discussed this on the development list. Perhaps we need to explain
it better in the documentation.
Is it correct to keep using user flags if override is off?
Yes.
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
if user not overriding domain limits
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
using mixed limits from user and domain.
Correct.
Would it be more direct to use only domain limits in such a case?
No. If you do it that way, you can't impose additional limits on a
single user in the domain (or, for example, add qmailadmin admin access).
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
else use user limits.
Correct. If V_OVERRIDE is set, or the limit lookup fails, it just uses
the user limits.
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Here's the patch to fix the domain limits problem. It's in CVS now,
and will be in the next release (which I'll make by the end of the
week). Hopefully the email gateways won't totally screw the file up...
[snip]
Thanks for including an entire copy of the patch in your response.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Interazioni di Antonio Nati
http://www.interazioni.it [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [vchkpw] disable_external_relay [PATCH]
Dear Tonino,
Earlier when I had put the disable_smtp into .qmailadmin-limits, it
still allowed to relay the users. When I did use the vmoduser to set the
disable_smtp flag, it worked. But, where did the vmoduser store this flag
info. I could not locate it.
May some expert out there listening, may guide us.
Devendra Singh
At 05/12/03 13:48 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Devendra,
I'm still with an old version, and my domain limits are in
.qmailadmin-limits, within the domain directory.
I don't know if this is still valid for new version. Give a look at your
Changelog and README files (andpost the result).
Ciao,
Tonino
At 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 +0530, Devendra Singh wrote:
Dear Tonino / Tom,
In between the whole expert discussion the user level curious question
BTW, where is this user's limits info stored in case of non-mysql
limits? got lost.
Please, let us know.
Devendra Singh
At 04/12/03 14:32 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
thanks for your clear explanation.
However, don't you think that kind of things should be discussed in the
general list instead of development list?
I feel that development list should deal with implementation, how to
develop, how to improve code, while functionalities should be
discussed with end-users (or production users), that are interested in
functionalities, and don't care about implementation.
I'm really amazed when I discover a changed feature and see that it's
been done by developers without talking with end-users.
Ciao,
Tonino
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 10:05 AM, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
sorry if I may be out of logic, just a fast look at the patch.
Here's how it works.
pw_gid is the user's limits.
if the user has V_OVERRIDE set, that's all they get.
otherwise, the domain limits are IN ADDITION to the user's limits.
For example:
If domain limit says no IMAP and user limit says no SMTP; user doesn't
have access to IMAP or SMTP.
Change domain limit from no IMAP to no POP. Now user limit becomes no
POP or SMTP.
We discussed this on the development list. Perhaps we need to explain
it better in the documentation.
Is it correct to keep using user flags if override is off?
Yes.
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
if user not overriding domain limits
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
using mixed limits from user and domain.
Correct.
Would it be more direct to use only domain limits in such a case?
No. If you do it that way, you can't impose additional limits on a
single user in the domain (or, for example, add qmailadmin admin access).
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
else use user limits.
Correct. If V_OVERRIDE is set, or the limit lookup fails, it just uses
the user limits.
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Here's the patch to fix the domain limits problem. It's in CVS now,
and will be in the next release (which I'll make by the end of the
week). Hopefully the email gateways won't totally screw the file up...
[snip]
Thanks for including an entire copy of the patch in your response.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03
Re: [vchkpw] disable_external_relay [PATCH]
vmoduser store this flag within the user record (either in .cdb or MysQl or
LDAP, depending on your configuration).
It's in the gid field.
Tonino
At 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 +0530, Devendra Singh wrote:
Dear Tonino,
Earlier when I had put the disable_smtp into .qmailadmin-limits, it
still allowed to relay the users. When I did use the vmoduser to set the
disable_smtp flag, it worked. But, where did the vmoduser store this flag
info. I could not locate it.
May some expert out there listening, may guide us.
Devendra Singh
At 05/12/03 13:48 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Devendra,
I'm still with an old version, and my domain limits are in
.qmailadmin-limits, within the domain directory.
I don't know if this is still valid for new version. Give a look at your
Changelog and README files (andpost the result).
Ciao,
Tonino
At 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 +0530, Devendra Singh wrote:
Dear Tonino / Tom,
In between the whole expert discussion the user level curious question
BTW, where is this user's limits info stored in case of non-mysql
limits? got lost.
Please, let us know.
Devendra Singh
At 04/12/03 14:32 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
thanks for your clear explanation.
However, don't you think that kind of things should be discussed in the
general list instead of development list?
I feel that development list should deal with implementation, how to
develop, how to improve code, while functionalities should be
discussed with end-users (or production users), that are interested in
functionalities, and don't care about implementation.
I'm really amazed when I discover a changed feature and see that it's
been done by developers without talking with end-users.
Ciao,
Tonino
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 10:05 AM, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
sorry if I may be out of logic, just a fast look at the patch.
Here's how it works.
pw_gid is the user's limits.
if the user has V_OVERRIDE set, that's all they get.
otherwise, the domain limits are IN ADDITION to the user's limits.
For example:
If domain limit says no IMAP and user limit says no SMTP; user doesn't
have access to IMAP or SMTP.
Change domain limit from no IMAP to no POP. Now user limit becomes no
POP or SMTP.
We discussed this on the development list. Perhaps we need to explain
it better in the documentation.
Is it correct to keep using user flags if override is off?
Yes.
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
if user not overriding domain limits
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
using mixed limits from user and domain.
Correct.
Would it be more direct to use only domain limits in such a case?
No. If you do it that way, you can't impose additional limits on a
single user in the domain (or, for example, add qmailadmin admin access).
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
else use user limits.
Correct. If V_OVERRIDE is set, or the limit lookup fails, it just
uses the user limits.
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Here's the patch to fix the domain limits problem. It's in CVS now,
and will be in the next release (which I'll make by the end of the
week). Hopefully the email gateways won't totally screw the file up...
[snip]
Thanks for including an entire copy of the patch in your response.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Interazioni di Antonio Nati
http://www.interazioni.it [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [vchkpw] disable_external_relay [PATCH]
Tom,
thanks for your clear explanation.
However, don't you think that kind of things should be discussed in the
general list instead of development list?
I feel that development list should deal with implementation, how to
develop, how to improve code, while functionalities should be discussed
with end-users (or production users), that are interested in
functionalities, and don't care about implementation.
I'm really amazed when I discover a changed feature and see that it's been
done by developers without talking with end-users.
Ciao,
Tonino
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 10:05 AM, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
sorry if I may be out of logic, just a fast look at the patch.
Here's how it works.
pw_gid is the user's limits.
if the user has V_OVERRIDE set, that's all they get.
otherwise, the domain limits are IN ADDITION to the user's limits.
For example:
If domain limit says no IMAP and user limit says no SMTP; user doesn't
have access to IMAP or SMTP.
Change domain limit from no IMAP to no POP. Now user limit becomes no POP
or SMTP.
We discussed this on the development list. Perhaps we need to explain it
better in the documentation.
Is it correct to keep using user flags if override is off?
Yes.
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
if user not overriding domain limits
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
using mixed limits from user and domain.
Correct.
Would it be more direct to use only domain limits in such a case?
No. If you do it that way, you can't impose additional limits on a single
user in the domain (or, for example, add qmailadmin admin access).
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
else use user limits.
Correct. If V_OVERRIDE is set, or the limit lookup fails, it just uses
the user limits.
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Here's the patch to fix the domain limits problem. It's in CVS now, and
will be in the next release (which I'll make by the end of the
week). Hopefully the email gateways won't totally screw the file up...
[snip]
Thanks for including an entire copy of the patch in your response.
--
Tom Collins - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/
Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Interazioni di Antonio Nati
http://www.interazioni.it [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [vchkpw] disable_external_relay [PATCH]
Dear Tonino / Tom,
In between the whole expert discussion the user level curious question
BTW, where is this user's limits info stored in case of non-mysql limits?
got lost.
Please, let us know.
Devendra Singh
At 04/12/03 14:32 (), tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
thanks for your clear explanation.
However, don't you think that kind of things should be discussed in the
general list instead of development list?
I feel that development list should deal with implementation, how to
develop, how to improve code, while functionalities should be discussed
with end-users (or production users), that are interested in
functionalities, and don't care about implementation.
I'm really amazed when I discover a changed feature and see that it's been
done by developers without talking with end-users.
Ciao,
Tonino
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 10:05 AM, tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
Tom,
sorry if I may be out of logic, just a fast look at the patch.
Here's how it works.
pw_gid is the user's limits.
if the user has V_OVERRIDE set, that's all they get.
otherwise, the domain limits are IN ADDITION to the user's limits.
For example:
If domain limit says no IMAP and user limit says no SMTP; user doesn't
have access to IMAP or SMTP.
Change domain limit from no IMAP to no POP. Now user limit becomes no
POP or SMTP.
We discussed this on the development list. Perhaps we need to explain it
better in the documentation.
Is it correct to keep using user flags if override is off?
Yes.
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
if user not overriding domain limits
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
using mixed limits from user and domain.
Correct.
Would it be more direct to use only domain limits in such a case?
No. If you do it that way, you can't impose additional limits on a
single user in the domain (or, for example, add qmailadmin admin access).
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
else use user limits.
Correct. If V_OVERRIDE is set, or the limit lookup fails, it just uses
the user limits.
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Here's the patch to fix the domain limits problem. It's in CVS now,
and will be in the next release (which I'll make by the end of the
week). Hopefully the email gateways won't totally screw the file up...
[snip]
Thanks for including an entire copy of the patch in your response.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03
Re: [vchkpw] disable_external_relay [PATCH]
Here's the patch to fix the domain limits problem. It's in CVS now,
and will be in the next release (which I'll make by the end of the
week). Hopefully the email gateways won't totally screw the file up...
Update of /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv1963
Modified Files:
vlimits.h vlimits.c vcdb.c vactivedir.c vldap.c vmysql.c
vpgsql.c vsybase.c
Log Message:
fix and move pw_flags setting code to vlimits.c
Index: vlimits.h
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vlimits.h,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -d -r1.5 -r1.6
--- vlimits.h 21 Oct 2003 21:24:37 - 1.5
+++ vlimits.h 3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.6
@@ -57,4 +57,5 @@
int vlimits_read_limits_file(const char * dir, struct vlimits *
limits);
int vlimits_write_limits_file(const char * dir, const struct vlimits *
limits);
int vlimits_get_flag_mask(struct vlimits *limits);
+void vlimits_setflags (struct vqpasswd *pw, char *domain);
#endif
Index: vlimits.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vlimits.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -d -r1.8 -r1.9
--- vlimits.c 23 Nov 2003 19:27:39 - 1.8
+++ vlimits.c 3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.9
@@ -365,4 +365,13 @@
return unlink(dir);
}
+void vlimits_setflags (struct vqpasswd *pw, char *domain)
+{
+struct vlimits limits;
+
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
+}
#endif
Index: vcdb.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vcdb.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -d -r1.10 -r1.11
--- vcdb.c 15 Nov 2003 06:55:43 - 1.10
+++ vcdb.c 3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.11
@@ -231,7 +231,6 @@
#ifdef FILE_LOCKING
FILE *lock_fs;
#endif
- struct vlimits limits;
verrori = 0;
lowerit(user);
@@ -311,10 +310,7 @@
if (!*uid) { pwent.pw_uid = 0; } else { pwent.pw_uid = atoi(uid); }
if (!*gid) { pwent.pw_gid = 0; } else { pwent.pw_gid = atoi(gid); }
-if ((! pwent.pw_gid V_OVERRIDE)
- (vget_limits (in_domain, limits) == 0)) {
-pwent.pw_flags = pwent.pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask
(limits);
-} else pwent.pw_flags = pwent.pw_gid;
+vlimits_setflags (pwent, in_domain);
#ifdef DEBUG
fprintf (stderr,vgetpw: db: results: pw_name =
%s\n,pwent.pw_name);
Index: vactivedir.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vactivedir.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -d -r1.8 -r1.9
--- vactivedir.c15 Nov 2003 06:55:43 - 1.8
+++ vactivedir.c3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.9
@@ -160,7 +160,6 @@
static struct vqpasswd vpw;
static struct actdirvp adir;
int sock;
- struct vlimits limits;
if ( (sock=ad_open_conn())==-1){
printf(could not connect\n);
@@ -189,10 +188,7 @@
ad_fill_vpw(vpw,adir);
- if ((! vpw.pw_gid V_OVERRIDE)
- (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
- vpw.pw_flags = vpw.pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
- } else vpw.pw_flags = vpw.pw_gid;
+ vlimits_setflags (vpw, domain);
return(vpw);
}
Index: vldap.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vldap.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -d -r1.10 -r1.11
--- vldap.c 15 Nov 2003 06:55:44 - 1.10
+++ vldap.c 3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.11
@@ -70,7 +70,6 @@
uid_t myuid;
uid_t uid;
gid_t gid;
- struct vlimits limits;
verrori = 0;
lowerit(user);
@@ -287,10 +286,7 @@
}
#endif
- if ((! vpw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE)
- (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
- vpw-pw_flags = vpw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
- } else vpw-pw_flags = vpw-pw_gid;
+ vlimits_setflags (vpw, domain);
return vpw;
Index: vmysql.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vmysql.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -d -r1.10 -r1.11
--- vmysql.c15 Nov 2003 06:55:44 - 1.10
+++ vmysql.c3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.11
@@ -417,7 +417,6 @@
uid_t myuid;
uid_t uid;
gid_t gid;
- struct vlimits limits;
vget_assign(domain,NULL,0,uid,gid);
@@ -496,10 +495,7 @@
}
mysql_free_result(res_read);
-if ((! vpw.pw_gid V_OVERRIDE)
- (vget_limits (in_domain, limits) == 0)) {
-vpw.pw_flags = vpw.pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
-} else vpw.pw_flags = vpw.pw_gid;
+vlimits_setflags (vpw, in_domain);
return(vpw);
}
Index: vpgsql.c
===
RCS file:
Re: [vchkpw] disable_external_relay [PATCH]
Tom,
sorry if I may be out of logic, just a fast look at the patch.
Is it correct to keep using user flags if override is off?
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
if user not overriding domain limits
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
using mixed limits from user and domain.
Would it be more direct to use only domain limits in such a case?
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
else use user limits.
Ciao,
Tonino
At 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Here's the patch to fix the domain limits problem. It's in CVS now, and
will be in the next release (which I'll make by the end of the
week). Hopefully the email gateways won't totally screw the file up...
Update of /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv1963
Modified Files:
vlimits.h vlimits.c vcdb.c vactivedir.c vldap.c vmysql.c
vpgsql.c vsybase.c
Log Message:
fix and move pw_flags setting code to vlimits.c
Index: vlimits.h
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vlimits.h,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -d -r1.5 -r1.6
--- vlimits.h 21 Oct 2003 21:24:37 - 1.5
+++ vlimits.h 3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.6
@@ -57,4 +57,5 @@
int vlimits_read_limits_file(const char * dir, struct vlimits * limits);
int vlimits_write_limits_file(const char * dir, const struct vlimits *
limits);
int vlimits_get_flag_mask(struct vlimits *limits);
+void vlimits_setflags (struct vqpasswd *pw, char *domain);
#endif
Index: vlimits.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vlimits.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -d -r1.8 -r1.9
--- vlimits.c 23 Nov 2003 19:27:39 - 1.8
+++ vlimits.c 3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.9
@@ -365,4 +365,13 @@
return unlink(dir);
}
+void vlimits_setflags (struct vqpasswd *pw, char *domain)
+{
+struct vlimits limits;
+
+if ((! (pw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE))
+ (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
+pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
+} else pw-pw_flags = pw-pw_gid;
+}
#endif
Index: vcdb.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vcdb.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -d -r1.10 -r1.11
--- vcdb.c 15 Nov 2003 06:55:43 - 1.10
+++ vcdb.c 3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.11
@@ -231,7 +231,6 @@
#ifdef FILE_LOCKING
FILE *lock_fs;
#endif
- struct vlimits limits;
verrori = 0;
lowerit(user);
@@ -311,10 +310,7 @@
if (!*uid) { pwent.pw_uid = 0; } else { pwent.pw_uid = atoi(uid); }
if (!*gid) { pwent.pw_gid = 0; } else { pwent.pw_gid = atoi(gid); }
-if ((! pwent.pw_gid V_OVERRIDE)
- (vget_limits (in_domain, limits) == 0)) {
-pwent.pw_flags = pwent.pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
-} else pwent.pw_flags = pwent.pw_gid;
+vlimits_setflags (pwent, in_domain);
#ifdef DEBUG
fprintf (stderr,vgetpw: db: results: pw_name = %s\n,pwent.pw_name);
Index: vactivedir.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vactivedir.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -d -r1.8 -r1.9
--- vactivedir.c15 Nov 2003 06:55:43 - 1.8
+++ vactivedir.c3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.9
@@ -160,7 +160,6 @@
static struct vqpasswd vpw;
static struct actdirvp adir;
int sock;
- struct vlimits limits;
if ( (sock=ad_open_conn())==-1){
printf(could not connect\n);
@@ -189,10 +188,7 @@
ad_fill_vpw(vpw,adir);
- if ((! vpw.pw_gid V_OVERRIDE)
- (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
- vpw.pw_flags = vpw.pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
- } else vpw.pw_flags = vpw.pw_gid;
+ vlimits_setflags (vpw, domain);
return(vpw);
}
Index: vldap.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vldap.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -d -r1.10 -r1.11
--- vldap.c 15 Nov 2003 06:55:44 - 1.10
+++ vldap.c 3 Dec 2003 16:41:14 - 1.11
@@ -70,7 +70,6 @@
uid_t myuid;
uid_t uid;
gid_t gid;
- struct vlimits limits;
verrori = 0;
lowerit(user);
@@ -287,10 +286,7 @@
}
#endif
- if ((! vpw-pw_gid V_OVERRIDE)
- (vget_limits (domain, limits) == 0)) {
- vpw-pw_flags = vpw-pw_gid | vlimits_get_flag_mask (limits);
- } else vpw-pw_flags = vpw-pw_gid;
+ vlimits_setflags (vpw, domain);
return vpw;
Index: vmysql.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/vpopmail/vpopmail/vmysql.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -d -r1.10 -r1.11
--- vmysql.c15 Nov 2003 06:55:44 - 1.10
+++ vmysql.c3 Dec 2003 16:41:14
