[exim] Re: Building exim 4.97 without File::FcntlLock

2023-11-16 Thread Tim Tassonis via Exim-users
On 11/17/23 00:57, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote: On 16/11/2023 23:17, Tim Tassonis via Exim-users wrote: Can somebody tell me if this is ok, or leaves me with a bad exim? Your update script is now unsafe versus the main exim binary, plus any other utility we might introduce in the futu

[exim] Re: Building exim 4.97 without File::FcntlLock

2023-11-16 Thread Jeremy Harris via Exim-users
On 16/11/2023 23:17, Tim Tassonis via Exim-users wrote: Can somebody tell me if this is ok, or leaves me with a bad exim? Your update script is now unsafe versus the main exim binary, plus any other utility we might introduce in the future. Corrupt mails in the spool are the result. It would b

[exim] Building exim 4.97 without File::FcntlLock

2023-11-16 Thread Tim Tassonis via Exim-users
Hi all When trying to build exim 4.97, it fails because the perl modules File::FcntlLock is missing. That is quite unfortunate, as it introduces a new dependency. I got around it by patching exim_id_update.src, commenting out use File::FcntlLock; and twice $fs->l_whence( SEEK_CUR ); Afte

[exim] Re: TAKE NOTE 2: Future Let's Encrypt CA choice randomisation.

2023-11-16 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 07:41:46PM +, Slavko via Exim-users wrote: > >If you're using Let's Encrypt as your CA and prefer to publish > >DANE-TA(2), rather than DANE-EE(3) TLSA records, please look over: > > Just curious. Enough recent certbot provides --reuse-key and --new-key > (or so) optio

[exim] Re: TAKE NOTE 2: Future Let's Encrypt CA choice randomisation.

2023-11-16 Thread Slavko via Exim-users
Dňa 15. novembra 2023 23:14:39 UTC používateľ Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users napísal: >If you're using Let's Encrypt as your CA and prefer to publish >DANE-TA(2), rather than DANE-EE(3) TLSA records, please look over: Just curious. Enough recent certbot provides --reuse-key and --new-key (or so

[exim] Re: Testing the GSASL authenticator with SCRAM-*-PLUS

2023-11-16 Thread Jeremy Harris via Exim-users
On 15/11/2023 20:32, Martin Lambers via Exim-users wrote: In particular, I have trouble understanding the purpose and usage of the 'server_password' option with GSASL. How do I use this to authenticate a single  test user? server_password is the password that the server is expecting for the ac

[exim] Re: Message ID length change: Expected?

2023-11-16 Thread Jeremy Harris via Exim-users
On 16/11/2023 04:23, Jasen Betts via Exim-users wrote: for me 0..28 is not quite enough That's interesting info. How big a farm sharing a single spool do you (indeed, anyone) think Exim ought to support? There's probably no appetite for another format change so soon, but having opinions & wis

[exim] Re: Message ID length change: Expected?

2023-11-16 Thread Jasen Betts via Exim-users
On 2023-11-14, Kris Oye via Exim-users wrote: > After re-reading the release notes, I see this footnote: > > "Notable changes: > > - The internal (but exposed in logs, Received: headers and Message-ID: > headers) > identifier used for messages is longer than in the previous release" > > I gue

[exim] Testing the GSASL authenticator with SCRAM-*-PLUS

2023-11-16 Thread Martin Lambers via Exim-users
Hello, I am trying to set up a very simple test case for the GSASL authenticator, in order to test msmtp against different authentication mechanisms, in particular the SCRAM-*-PLUS methods. For that purpose, I only want to define a single test user, if possible without complex data base look