From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: Update to 0.13 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:19:59 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0134155050212692808==" List-Id: --===============0134155050212692808== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Peter, We know about your personal hatred for dma. I do agree though. A couple of years you proposed replacing it with nullmaile= r which didn=E2=80=99t look too much better after a quick glance over the cod= e. I still stand by the fact that we need something that does more than a =E2=80= =9Cfire and forget=E2=80=9D email. If it cannot be sent immediately, the emai= l needs to be spooled somewhere and tried again later. dma is a very simple implementation that did this job. I agree with the bad p= atches that are being accepted right now and that make the whole software pot= entially vulnerable. The maintainer has confirmed to me that he has no intere= st in continuing development of dma and that he might consider a rewrite in G= o or Rust or any other =E2=80=9Cmodern=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cprogramming=E2=80=9D= 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 M=C3=BCller wr= ote: >=20 > Good evening Adolf, > good evening *, >=20 > 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/com= mits/master, there were > four commits to the source code since version 0.12: >=20 > 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 >=20 > The latter is especially - um - interesting as the full commit message (ava= ilable online at > https://github.com/corecode/dma/commit/450d4b68d3295d2ef50fa5c9576f5c4e043c= 0c80) states: >=20 >> RFC5321 section 4.1.1.3 states that RCPT TO only takes one address at a ti= me. >=20 > Seriously?! Not even an MTA programmer is reading most basic mail RFCs anym= ore?!?! >=20 > Yes, DMA might be a lightweight replacement for Postfix on machines just ne= eding a better smarthost. > However, the commit above means DMA behaved RFC-ignorant as soon as a messa= ge had more than one > recipient - which apparently does not seem to happen that often to DMA user= s. >=20 > 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 complex= ity battle years ago, > apparently, we cannot count on application programmers to have a slightest = clue about what they are > doing as well. >=20 > I am shocked about the quality of that piece of software. >=20 > Embittered, > Peter M=C3=BCller >=20 >> - Update dma from 0.12 to 0.13 >> - No changelog information available >> - No change to the rootfile >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Adolf Belka >> --- >> lfs/dma | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>=20 >> diff --git a/lfs/dma b/lfs/dma >> index aceb2704e..78bb6465f 100644 >> --- a/lfs/dma >> +++ b/lfs/dma >> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ >>=20 >> include Config >>=20 >> -VER =3D 0.12 >> +VER =3D 0.13 >>=20 >> THISAPP =3D dma-$(VER) >> DL_FILE =3D $(THISAPP).tar.gz >> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ objects =3D $(DL_FILE) >>=20 >> $(DL_FILE) =3D $(DL_FROM)/$(DL_FILE) >>=20 >> -$(DL_FILE)_MD5 =3D 58cb2a286995381c92dc557e639622d6 >> +$(DL_FILE)_MD5 =3D 8bf824b065295a594f399c8b96663673 >>=20 >> install : $(TARGET) >>=20 >>=20 --===============0134155050212692808==--