On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:40:21PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I think the -T *should* be there on the command line, but there are some
bugs in qpsmtpd and/or your plugins which need to be fixed before it will
work.
forkserver has used -T since 29ac2860, back in 2004. Obviously prefork is
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Devin Carraway wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:40:21PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I think the -T *should* be there on the command line, but there are some
bugs in qpsmtpd and/or your plugins which need to be fixed before it will
work.
forkserver has used -T since
After kludging the insecure dependency error...
I get 5 permanent copies of prefork in the process table, and one copy
that keeps on starting and dying (new PID every time I look). It seems to
take a long time before anything shows up in the log, though, which is why
it may have taken so long for
On Thu, 21 May 2009, J wrote:
I'll keep plugging at it :-/
Progress, I think.
I added back the sh -c '...' stuff to my run file, but without the other
stuff Charlie said shouldn't be there. Here's what I have now:
#!/bin/sh
exec 21 \
sh -c '
exec \
I thought I'd move this out into a separate question, in case people were
tired of seeing my other thread...
I set my 'run' file to use two ports, but only the last one listed is
actually being listened on. I verified this with manual connections and
netstat on the server.
Does this mean prefork
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Devin Carraway wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:40:21PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I think the -T *should* be there on the command line, but there are some
bugs in qpsmtpd and/or your plugins which need to be fixed before
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 07:23:55AM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
I guess this raises a question: The return values from config() are
tainted. Should we de-taint them?
I think so. Integrity of the config files is an issue handled much higher up,
not by taint checks way down in plugins.
--
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 03:30:28PM +, J wrote:
I set my 'run' file to use two ports, but only the last one listed is
actually being listened on. I verified this with manual connections and
netstat on the server.
Does this mean prefork can only listen to one port, or might I be invoking
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Devin Carraway wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 03:30:28PM +, J wrote:
Does this mean prefork can only listen to one port, or might I be invoking
it improperly?
The prefork in 0.81 can only listen on one. The next release will support
listening on multiple
On May 21, 2009, at 12:30, J wrote:
The prefork in 0.81 can only listen on one. The next release will
support
listening on multiple addresses ports in prefork, just as
forkserver does.
Any idea when that might be?
Probably in about 4-6 weeks. My plan is to do a release at least
From: Devin Carraway qpsm...@devin.com
---
qpsmtpd-prefork |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qpsmtpd-prefork b/qpsmtpd-prefork
index 798e3c4..aecb417 100755
--- a/qpsmtpd-prefork
+++ b/qpsmtpd-prefork
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ if (@d_addr) {
}
}
}
On 05/21/2009 02:56 PM, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
On May 21, 2009, at 12:30, J wrote:
The prefork in 0.81 can only listen on one. The next release will
support
listening on multiple addresses ports in prefork, just as
forkserver does.
Any idea when that might be?
Probably in about 4-6
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 08:17:51PM +, J wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote:
wget http://github.com/abh/qpsmtpd/tarball/master
I copied the qpsmtpd-prefork from there and restarted. The following error
is repeated, with no qpsmtpd-prefork processes showing up:
Yeah,
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 03:55:33PM -0500, Jared Johnson wrote:
You might want to consider the multiple-addresses/ports thing to be
significant enough to warrant an early release; I noticed a bit ago that
the stock debian package had switched to prefork, but had to revert back
to forkserver
I'm the Debian maintainer. :)
Fancy meeting you here :) OT, you might want to patch the debian init
script now that QP supports SIGHUP. Here's my local patch, but I
haven't bothered scrutinizing and un-preforkifying and therefore
officially sending it in:
---
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Devin Carraway wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 08:17:51PM +, J wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote:
wget http://github.com/abh/qpsmtpd/tarball/master
I copied the qpsmtpd-prefork from there and restarted. The following error
is repeated, with
J wrote:
Can we get this put into the wiki?
Feel free to edit the wiki. It's open to all.
Regards
James Turnbull
--
Author of:
* Pro Linux Systems Administration
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1430219122/)
* Pulling Strings with Puppet
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590599780/)
*
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:13:08PM +, J wrote:
Made the substitution, as suggested, but now I get the following error
repeated:
Insecure dependency in setpriority while running with -T switch at
./qpsmtpd-prefork line 432.
sigh You can work around this one by leaving off the
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Devin Carraway wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:13:08PM +, J wrote:
Made the substitution, as suggested, but now I get the following error
repeated:
Insecure dependency in setpriority while running with -T switch at
./qpsmtpd-prefork line 432.
sigh You can
19 matches
Mail list logo
