Milter-greylist

i recently upgraded to 4.2.6 with no troubles. i then installed it fresh
on a new system and sendmail wouldn't start.  i tracked it down to a
trailing comma in the sendmail.cf left there by the milter-greylist.m4
config file.  the update didn't get triggered because the sendmail cf
logic isn't smart enough to rebuild if a feature file changes.

i'm working on a tweak to the m4 to deal with this, but wanted to give a
heads up to folks.

Joe Pruett <joey@...> wrote:

> i recently upgraded to 4.2.6 with no troubles. i then installed it fresh
> on a new system and sendmail wouldn't start.  i tracked it down to a
> trailing comma in the sendmail.cf left there by the milter-greylist.m4
> config file.  the update didn't get triggered because the sendmail cf
> logic isn't smart enough to rebuild if a feature file changes.

We recently fixed such a problem in milter-greylist.m4
As far as I understand, the latest tarball contain the fixed .m4. Are
you regenerating sendmail.cf with the updated milter-greylist.m4?

Or is it another new problem?

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu@...

i've attached my diff that fixes the issue.  i'm not sure it is the 
"correct" way to do sendmail m4 stuff, but it seems to function and fix 
the issue.

i used the milter-greylist.m4 from 4.2.6 and it had the problem.  why i
(and maybe others) didn't see it earlier is that updating the .m4 file
doesn't cause a rebuild of the sendmail.cf, only a change to sendmail.mc
will cause that.

look at my diff and see what i did.  maybe the change you made didn't
make it to the release?

On 01/19/2011 06:43 PM, manu@... wrote:
> We recently fixed such a problem in milter-greylist.m4
> As far as I understand, the latest tarball contain the fixed .m4. Are
> you regenerating sendmail.cf with the updated milter-greylist.m4?
>
> Or is it another new problem?
>

Joe Pruett <joey@...> wrote:

> i've attached my diff that fixes the issue.  i'm not sure it is the 
> "correct" way to do sendmail m4 stuff, but it seems to function and fix
> the issue.

The patch does not apply against latest sources, neither does it against
4.2.6. Since the change is subttle and I am not a user of that file, I
will not try to guess. 

Can you check out the 4.2.6 tarball and do a diff -U4 against it?

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu@...

it was definitely done against the 4.2.6 tarball and i was just able to 
apply the patch with no hassles.  and i just looked at the development 
tarball and it has the same file and my patch applied directly to it as 
well.

i have remade the patch with -U4 and attached it just in case that helps.

On 2011-01-20 18:21, manu@... wrote:
> The patch does not apply against latest sources, neither does it against
> 4.2.6. Since the change is subttle and I am not a user of that file, I
> will not try to guess.
>
> Can you check out the 4.2.6 tarball and do a diff -U4 against it?
>

Joe Pruett <joey@...> wrote:

> it was definitely done against the 4.2.6 tarball and i was just able to
> apply the patch with no hassles.  and i just looked at the development
> tarball and it has the same file and my patch applied directly to it as
> well.

Ok it works. I don't know what happened last time, perhaps I used a
wrong file.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu@...