Re: [PATCH] dma: Update to 0.13

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3358 bytes --]

Hello Peter,

We know about your personal hatred for dma.

I do agree though. A couple of years you proposed replacing it with nullmailer which didn’t look too much better after a quick glance over the code.

I still stand by the fact that we need something that does more than a “fire and forget” email. If it cannot be sent immediately, the email needs to be spooled somewhere and tried again later.

dma is a very simple implementation that did this job. I agree with the bad patches that are being accepted right now and that make the whole software potentially vulnerable. The maintainer has confirmed to me that he has no interest in continuing development of dma and that he might consider a rewrite in Go or Rust or any other “modern” “programming” language.

Therefore I would like to ask if you still want to replace dma by nullmailer or something else?

-Michael

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 20:36, Peter Müller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Good evening Adolf,
> good evening *,
> 
> while you neither are responsible for nor can change anything to it, I must say missing changelogs
> are not a good sign to me. Referring to https://github.com/corecode/dma/commits/master, there were
> four commits to the source code since version 0.12:
> 
> 1. Make MASQUERADE config setting override -f
> 2. add support for RFC976 From_ lines
> 3. add option to verify server certificate fingerprint
> 4. Change RCPT TO to split up multiple addresses
> 
> The latter is especially - um - interesting as the full commit message (available online at
> https://github.com/corecode/dma/commit/450d4b68d3295d2ef50fa5c9576f5c4e043c0c80) states:
> 
>> RFC5321 section 4.1.1.3 states that RCPT TO only takes one address at a time.
> 
> Seriously?! Not even an MTA programmer is reading most basic mail RFCs anymore?!?!
> 
> Yes, DMA might be a lightweight replacement for Postfix on machines just needing a better smarthost.
> However, the commit above means DMA behaved RFC-ignorant as soon as a message had more than one
> recipient - which apparently does not seem to happen that often to DMA users.
> 
> RFC 5321 is not about rocket science or some exotic corner cases at all, it is one of the most basic
> internet standards regarding e-mail communication. We have lost the complexity battle years ago,
> apparently, we cannot count on application programmers to have a slightest clue about what they are
> doing as well.
> 
> I am shocked about the quality of that piece of software.
> 
> Embittered,
> Peter Müller
> 
>> - Update dma from 0.12 to 0.13
>> - No changelog information available
>> - No change to the rootfile
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Adolf Belka <adolf.belka(a)ipfire.org>
>> ---
>> lfs/dma | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/lfs/dma b/lfs/dma
>> index aceb2704e..78bb6465f 100644
>> --- a/lfs/dma
>> +++ b/lfs/dma
>> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
>> 
>> include Config
>> 
>> -VER        = 0.12
>> +VER        = 0.13
>> 
>> THISAPP    = dma-$(VER)
>> DL_FILE    = $(THISAPP).tar.gz
>> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ objects = $(DL_FILE)
>> 
>> $(DL_FILE) = $(DL_FROM)/$(DL_FILE)
>> 
>> -$(DL_FILE)_MD5 = 58cb2a286995381c92dc557e639622d6
>> +$(DL_FILE)_MD5 = 8bf824b065295a594f399c8b96663673
>> 
>> install : $(TARGET)
>> 
>>