--On Monday, February 07, 2011 3:50 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
The mailing list is not a repository.
That may be. However, I tend to check useful patches into *our*
repository. I'm sure that is not uncommon for organizations like Debian,
Ubuntu, etc, as well.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gi
--On Monday, February 07, 2011 3:39 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
wrote:
I can "Save As" just fine, the point is I don't want or need all the
cruft from the message, just the patch itself. It's cleaner and
simpler.
The "patch" command automatically deals with (ignores) non-patch
content. The cr
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> --On Monday, February 07, 2011 2:47 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
> wrote:
>
> > Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> >> --On Monday, February 07, 2011 11:05 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Below is a patch that goes further. Like the earlier patch it fixes
> >> > the loglevel
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 12:32:55PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Monday, February 07, 2011 3:06 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
> wrote:
>
>> Tabs are equally well preserved in the message body as in attachments.
>> I applied the patch directly from the message source. Perhaps your
>> mail c
--On Monday, February 07, 2011 3:06 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
wrote:
Tabs are equally well preserved in the message body as in attachments.
I applied the patch directly from the message source. Perhaps your
mail client does not make the message body available for saving into
a file?
I use mutt
* Victor Duchovni :
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:50:14AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> > ASCII mail involves having to do a bunch of otherwise unnecessary editing
> > to preserve things like tabs in the patch files. Attachments are the
> > standard practice for patches of every other op
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:50:14AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> ASCII mail involves having to do a bunch of otherwise unnecessary editing
> to preserve things like tabs in the patch files. Attachments are the
> standard practice for patches of every other open source software project I
--On Monday, February 07, 2011 2:47 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
--On Monday, February 07, 2011 11:05 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
> Below is a patch that goes further. Like the earlier patch it fixes
> the loglevel >= 3 segfault in BOTH smtpd and tlsproxy. In additio
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> --On Monday, February 07, 2011 11:05 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
> wrote:
>
> > Below is a patch that goes further. Like the earlier patch it fixes
> > the loglevel >= 3 segfault in BOTH smtpd and tlsproxy. In addition,
> > it makes tlsproxy(8) actually log TLS transactions as
--On Monday, February 07, 2011 11:05 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
Below is a patch that goes further. Like the earlier patch it fixes
the loglevel >= 3 segfault in BOTH smtpd and tlsproxy. In addition,
it makes tlsproxy(8) actually log TLS transactions as expected.
It works around an undocum
Hi,
>> It works around an undocumented OpenSSL mis-feature, by moving the
>> SSL_set_fd() call from tlsproxy(8) into the Postfix TLS library.
>> Apparently, SSL_set_fd() destroys call-back information that is
>> already set up on an SSL handle. That was causing tlsproxy(8)'s
>> verbose logging to
Wietse Venema:
> It works around an undocumented OpenSSL mis-feature, by moving the
> SSL_set_fd() call from tlsproxy(8) into the Postfix TLS library.
> Apparently, SSL_set_fd() destroys call-back information that is
> already set up on an SSL handle. That was causing tlsproxy(8)'s
> verbose loggin
Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Christian Roessner:
> > > I double checked that cacert.org's cert is in that path as well
> > > and that the c_hash exists, too. I did not find an answer and so
> > > I only changed the log level of smtpd_tls_loglevel = 1 to 3. This
> > > brought the segfault and
Christian Roessner:
> Patch applied:
>
> Feb 7 16:25:55 mx postfix/tlsproxy[10233]: initializing the server-side TLS
> engine
> Feb 7 16:25:55 mx postfix/tlsproxy[10233]: CONNECT from [127.0.0.1]:41711
> Feb 7 16:25:55 mx postfix/tlsproxy[10233]: setting up TLS connection from
> [127.0.0.1]:4
Hi,
Am 07.02.2011 um 15:39 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
>> Christian Roessner:
>>> I double checked that cacert.org's cert is in that path as well
>>> and that the c_hash exists, too. I did not find an answer and so
>>> I only changed the log level of smtpd_tls_loglevel = 1 to 3. This
Wietse Venema:
> Christian Roessner:
> > I double checked that cacert.org's cert is in that path as well
> > and that the c_hash exists, too. I did not find an answer and so
> > I only changed the log level of smtpd_tls_loglevel = 1 to 3. This
> > brought the segfault and this in the logs:
> >
> >
16 matches
Mail list logo
