exim 4.84

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
48 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

exim 4.84

valki

Hi list!

 

Is anyone sucessfully running exim4u with exim 4.84?  I made an update to that exim version and had to find out that several transports were broken (around remove_header, failed to expand with some sql statements etc.).

I made some customizations but it looks like a general compatibility problem – can anyone confirm?

 

Kind regards,

Valki


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

gldickens3
Administrator
That is interesting but should not be happening. I have not tested exim 4.84 yet but it should be backwards compatible with earlier versions... 

You may want to make a post to the [hidden email] list to inquire if they have changed something that might cause this behavior.  You can subscribe to the exim-users list here:

http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users

FYI,

Gordon




On 09/02/2014 03:22 AM, Valkanover Harald wrote:

Hi list!

 

Is anyone sucessfully running exim4u with exim 4.84?  I made an update to that exim version and had to find out that several transports were broken (around remove_header, failed to expand with some sql statements etc.).

I made some customizations but it looks like a general compatibility problem – can anyone confirm?

 

Kind regards,

Valki



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Odhiambo Washington
There are two servers on which I am running 4.84 with Exim4U and I don't seem to have a problem. However, I noticed during upgrade that the 4.84 also wanted an updated version of PCRE so you may need to take care of that if you didn't already.



On 3 September 2014 13:10, Gordon Dickens <[hidden email]> wrote:
That is interesting but should not be happening. I have not tested exim 4.84 yet but it should be backwards compatible with earlier versions... 

You may want to make a post to the [hidden email] list to inquire if they have changed something that might cause this behavior.  You can subscribe to the exim-users list here:

http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users

FYI,

Gordon





On 09/02/2014 03:22 AM, Valkanover Harald wrote:

Hi list!

 

Is anyone sucessfully running exim4u with exim 4.84?  I made an update to that exim version and had to find out that several transports were broken (around remove_header, failed to expand with some sql statements etc.).

I made some customizations but it looks like a general compatibility problem – can anyone confirm?

 

Kind regards,

Valki



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users




--
Best regards,
Odhiambo WASHINGTON,
Nairobi,KE
+254733744121/+254722743223
"I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler."

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Shamim Shahriar
On 03/09/2014 11:27, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
There are two servers on which I am running 4.84 with Exim4U and I don't seem to have a problem. However, I noticed during upgrade that the 4.84 also wanted an updated version of PCRE so you may need to take care of that if you didn't already.



On 3 September 2014 13:10, Gordon Dickens <[hidden email]> wrote:
That is interesting but should not be happening. I have not tested exim 4.84 yet but it should be backwards compatible with earlier versions... 

You may want to make a post to the [hidden email] list to inquire if they have changed something that might cause this behavior.  You can subscribe to the exim-users list here:

http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users

FYI,

Gordon
Hello

I can confirm that this is more likely a compatibility issue. Here is what I have found so far. But I might be thoroughly mistaken (not being very experienced in such things always leaves that possibility)

All routers that have header_remove and the select statement inside fails to expand, resulting in something like below

16:14:55 19977 failed to expand: select users.sa_tag * 10 from
users,domains where local
16:14:55 19977    error message: missing } at end of string
If you comment out the header_remove, or keep it very very simple, then it works.

Reading this thread I checked my PCRE (which was latest by the way), tried different version, didn't make any difference. Also, I have other systems running older version of exim, but fairly recent (and on one particular the latest) version of PCRE, they are working without any issue. The only problem I found was the one with the latest exim.

I'm *almost* certain I'm missing something, but cannot put my finger on it.

Just my 2p

Thank you
SS



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

valki

Thanks for your confirmation shamim!

 

I tested around and found out that downgrading to exim 8.42 works while 4.84 is failing. (running pcre 8.34)

 

Removing remove_header solves the problem (but kills features of course) while add_header doesnt seem to be making similar problems (no help in that case of course – I was just curious).

 

While I was lazy by using exim4u it looks like the time has come to make my own hands dirty and ready through all configs and start fully understanding them J

 

 

Von: users [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Shamim Shahriar
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 04. September 2014 01:39
An: Exim4U General Discussion
Betreff: Re: [Exim4U] exim 4.84

 

On 03/09/2014 11:27, Odhiambo Washington wrote:

There are two servers on which I am running 4.84 with Exim4U and I don't seem to have a problem. However, I noticed during upgrade that the 4.84 also wanted an updated version of PCRE so you may need to take care of that if you didn't already.

 

 

On 3 September 2014 13:10, Gordon Dickens <[hidden email]> wrote:

That is interesting but should not be happening. I have not tested exim 4.84 yet but it should be backwards compatible with earlier versions... 

You may want to make a post to the [hidden email] list to inquire if they have changed something that might cause this behavior.  You can subscribe to the exim-users list here:

http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users

FYI,

Gordon

Hello

I can confirm that this is more likely a compatibility issue. Here is what I have found so far. But I might be thoroughly mistaken (not being very experienced in such things always leaves that possibility)

All routers that have header_remove and the select statement inside fails to expand, resulting in something like below


16:14:55 19977 failed to expand: select users.sa_tag * 10 from
users,domains where local
16:14:55 19977    error message: missing } at end of string

If you comment out the header_remove, or keep it very very simple, then it works.

Reading this thread I checked my PCRE (which was latest by the way), tried different version, didn't make any difference. Also, I have other systems running older version of exim, but fairly recent (and on one particular the latest) version of PCRE, they are working without any issue. The only problem I found was the one with the latest exim.

I'm *almost* certain I'm missing something, but cannot put my finger on it.

Just my 2p

Thank you
SS


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Shamim Shahriar


On 4 Sep 2014 08:09, "Valkanover Harald" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your confirmation shamim!
>
>  
>
> I tested around and found out that downgrading to exim 8.42 works while 4.84 is failing. (running pcre 8.34)
>
>  
>
> Removing remove_header solves the problem (but kills features of course) while add_header doesnt seem to be making similar problems (no help in that case of course – I was just curious).
>
>  
>
> While I was lazy by using exim4u it looks like the time has come to make my own hands dirty and ready through all configs and start fully understanding them J
>

Thanks J for confirming that i was not doing something wrong. However, i do recall a thread in the Exim mailing list that implied, due to people going for much complex rules and thus breaking Exim in certain mission critical cases, they did something which in turn required the queries in a different pattern.

But as i said before, I'm not that God in coding, so waiting for someone to get this sorted before updating the live servers.

All the best
SS


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Shamim Shahriar
In reply to this post by valki

On 4 Sep 2014 08:09, "Valkanover Harald" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your confirmation shamim!
>
>  
>
> I tested around and found out that downgrading to exim 8.42 works while 4.84 is failing. (running pcre 8.34)
>
>  
>
> Removing remove_header solves the problem (but kills features of course) while add_header doesnt seem to be making similar problems (no help in that case of course – I was just curious).
>
>  
>
> While I was lazy by using exim4u it looks like the time has come to make my own hands dirty and ready through all configs and start fully understanding them J
>
>  
Further search indicated that

"The behaviour of expansion of arguments to math comparison functions (<, <=, =, =>, >) was unexpected, expanding the values twice. Please update your configuration if you have relied on such an expansion."

( http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/UPDATING?view=markup)

Which seem to confirm to behaviour I'm experiencing. Makes me wonder how is it working properly for some and not for the others!

Thanks
SS


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Shamim Shahriar
In reply to this post by valki

I tried to simplify matters to see where things are going wrong, and thus updated the headers_remove with fixed values (no mysql lookup) as following

headers_remove = ${if or { { <{$spam_score_int}{1} } \
        { <{$spam_score_int}{20}{$value} } \
        { eq {0}{20}{$value} } \
        } {X-Spam-Score:X-Spam-Report} }

the result,

message: virtual_domains router failed to expand "${if or { {
<{$spam_score_int}{1} } { <{$spam_score_int}{20}{$value} } { eq
{0}{20}{$value}} } {X-Spam-Score:X-Spam-Report} }": missing } at end of
condition inside "or" group

I also tried it without the {$value} on the second and third condition
inside the OR, and the result is

message: virtual_domains router failed to expand "${if or { {
<{$spam_score_int}{1} } { <{$spam_score_int}{20} } { eq {0}{20}} }
{X-Spam-Score:X-Spam-Report} }": missing } at end of string

Could someone please point out what I am doing wrong?

Thanks
SS


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

valki

Dear SS,

 

We are discussing that matter in the exim mailinglist too at the moment:

https://lists.exim.org/lurker/thread/20140905.140342.50421642.en.html

 

Just playing with the options now…

 

 

kind regards,

 

 

Von: users [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Shamim Shahriar
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 04. September 2014 15:09
An: Exim4U General Discussion
Betreff: Re: [Exim4U] exim 4.84

 

I tried to simplify matters to see where things are going wrong, and thus updated the headers_remove with fixed values (no mysql lookup) as following

headers_remove = ${if or { { <{$spam_score_int}{1} } \
        { <{$spam_score_int}{20}{$value} } \
        { eq {0}{20}{$value} } \
        } {X-Spam-Score:X-Spam-Report} }

the result,

message: virtual_domains router failed to expand "${if or { {
<{$spam_score_int}{1} } { <{$spam_score_int}{20}{$value} } { eq
{0}{20}{$value}} } {X-Spam-Score:X-Spam-Report} }": missing } at end of
condition inside "or" group

I also tried it without the {$value} on the second and third condition
inside the OR, and the result is

message: virtual_domains router failed to expand "${if or { {
<{$spam_score_int}{1} } { <{$spam_score_int}{20} } { eq {0}{20}} }
{X-Spam-Score:X-Spam-Report} }": missing } at end of string

Could someone please point out what I am doing wrong?

Thanks
SS


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Rimas Kudelis
Hello,

2014.09.06 12:11, Valkanover Harald rašė:

>
> Dear SS,
>
>  
>
> We are discussing that matter in the exim mailinglist too at the moment:
>
> https://lists.exim.org/lurker/thread/20140905.140342.50421642.en.html
>
>  
>
> Just playing with the options now…
>

just wondering if anyone has this problem solved. I just checked the
thread on exim.org and it seems to be dead without resolution. There was
another related thread as well, but it appears now dead as well...

It would be great to have this fixed in both Vexim and Exim4U...

Rimas


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Shamim Shahriar
On 22/09/2014 19:50, Rimas Kudelis wrote:

> Hello,
>
> 2014.09.06 12:11, Valkanover Harald rašė:
>> Dear SS,
>>
>>  
>>
>> We are discussing that matter in the exim mailinglist too at the moment:
>>
>> https://lists.exim.org/lurker/thread/20140905.140342.50421642.en.html
>>
>>  
>>
>> Just playing with the options now…
>>
> just wondering if anyone has this problem solved. I just checked the
> thread on exim.org and it seems to be dead without resolution. There was
> another related thread as well, but it appears now dead as well...
>
> It would be great to have this fixed in both Vexim and Exim4U...
>
> Rimas
>
>
Unfortunately no, as far as I can tell, it is still open. Jeremy
suggested double colon and missing } -- both of which was tried and I
sent several tests and results to Exim mailing list (following the
thread at
https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20140904.223424.6e517e28.en.html),
and asked if I can/should run a few more tests and send results. I am
yet to get a response to that query.

Until such time as this is solved, I am unable to update exim to the
latest version -- on multiple servers. So a solution will truly be
highly appreciated.

Thanks all
Shah

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

valki
Hi! I just commented out the 2 parts of the config were remove_header was used. As this seems to have cosmetical implications only we should be able to use it that way...
Greets, valki

Shamim Shahriar <[hidden email]> schrieb am 22.09.2014:
On 22/09/2014 19:50, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
Hello,

2014.09.06 12:11, Valkanover Harald rašė:
Dear SS,



We are discussing that matter in the exim mailinglist too at the moment:

https://lists.exim.org/lurker/thread/20140905.140342.50421642.en.html



Just playing with the options now…

just wondering if anyone has this problem solved. I just checked the
thread on exim.org and it seems to be dead without resolution. There was
another related thread as well, but it appears now dead as well...

It would be great to have this fixed in both Vexim and Exim4U...

Rimas


Unfortunately no, as far as I can tell, it is still open. Jeremy
suggested double colon and missing } -- both of which was tried and I
sent several tests and results to Exim mailing list (following the
thread at
https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20140904.223424.6e517e28.en.html),
and asked if I can/should run a few more tests and send results. I am
yet to get a response to that query.

Until such time as this is solved, I am unable to update exim to the
latest version -- on multiple servers. So a solution will truly be
highly appreciated.

Thanks all
Shah



users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Diese Nachricht wurde mit K-@ Mail gesendet.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

gldickens3
Administrator
I have not tested exim4u with exim 4.84 and I may not have the resources or time to test it for quite a while, maybe for several months.  Harald Valkanover's suggestion to comment out the headers_remove statements that are causing problems may fix the problem. Other things to try would be:

- Disable subject tagging as described in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  Subject tagging may be disabled by setting the tag score in the web interface to be equal to or greater than the discard score for each user and domain.  This may or may not solve the problem but is worth a try.

- Disable Spamassassin by setting SpamRejectScore = 100 in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  I think that this would definitely solve the problem.

- Anybody that has the inclination is welcome to debug this problem.  Please post your solution so that it can be added to the stock exim4u config.

Otherwise, you need to run an exim version prior to 4.84 until someone has the time to study this further.

FYI,

Gordon




On 09/22/2014 03:45 PM, Harald Valkanover wrote:
Hi! I just commented out the 2 parts of the config were remove_header was used. As this seems to have cosmetical implications only we should be able to use it that way...
Greets, valki

Shamim Shahriar [hidden email] schrieb am 22.09.2014:
On 22/09/2014 19:50, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
Hello,

2014.09.06 12:11, Valkanover Harald rašė:
Dear SS,



We are discussing that matter in the exim mailinglist too at the moment:

https://lists.exim.org/lurker/thread/20140905.140342.50421642.en.html



Just playing with the options now…

just wondering if anyone has this problem solved. I just checked the
thread on exim.org and it seems to be dead without resolution. There was
another related thread as well, but it appears now dead as well...

It would be great to have this fixed in both Vexim and Exim4U...

Rimas


Unfortunately no, as far as I can tell, it is still open. Jeremy
suggested double colon and missing } -- both of which was tried and I
sent several tests and results to Exim mailing list (following the
thread at
https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20140904.223424.6e517e28.en.html),
and asked if I can/should run a few more tests and send results. I am
yet to get a response to that query.

Until such time as this is solved, I am unable to update exim to the
latest version -- on multiple servers. So a solution will truly be
highly appreciated.

Thanks all
Shah



users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Diese Nachricht wurde mit K-@ Mail gesendet.

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Shamim Shahriar
On 23/09/2014 00:32, Gordon Dickens wrote:
I have not tested exim4u with exim 4.84 and I may not have the resources or time to test it for quite a while, maybe for several months.  Harald Valkanover's suggestion to comment out the headers_remove statements that are causing problems may fix the problem. Other things to try would be:

- Disable subject tagging as described in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  Subject tagging may be disabled by setting the tag score in the web interface to be equal to or greater than the discard score for each user and domain.  This may or may not solve the problem but is worth a try.

- Disable Spamassassin by setting SpamRejectScore = 100 in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  I think that this would definitely solve the problem.

- Anybody that has the inclination is welcome to debug this problem.  Please post your solution so that it can be added to the stock exim4u config.

Otherwise, you need to run an exim version prior to 4.84 until someone has the time to study this further.

FYI,

Gordon

Hi Gordon

Thank you for the suggestions. The process of disabling features or removing global options, IMHO, is not a "fix", these are workarounds; and these workarounds are nothing but compromising the much needed features/functionalities that the users need/expect. Otherwise people would have used some other combination rather than Exim with exim4u or vexim. But as you stated, Exim v4.82 seem to be the last known functional setup, and hopefully people can still get by with that.

As for testing and sending feedbacks, I think the people who are suffering the most are not really "programmers" in the classical sense and are merely end users with functional knowledge of what is supposed to do happen at different configuration changes -- much of the v4.84 is implying that their knowledge, may be gathered over many years, are uselss -- irrespective of whether that is intended or a software glitch, and that is what got everyone befuddled. I for example am not happy with the defunct headers_remove section which, despite the non-effective solutions suggested so far, works flawlessly with v4.82, and the same lookup mysql works elsewhere except for the headers_remove section. This, as I understand, is inconsistency -- which needs "fixing" as opposed to taking a detour.

Please don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your suggestions and comments, and understand your lack of time for testing and debugging -- but that does not change the fact that both the vexim and exim4u community members (and users) are left with systems that they cannot patch, even if there is a major security issue, simply because that would make their setup disfunctional and useless. And I sincerely hope that proper solution will not take so long that by that time both the vexim and exim4u users will be forced to look for an alternate.

Just my 2p

Best regards
Shah

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

gldickens3
Administrator
Hi Shah,

I share your frustration.

It is highly unusual for software developers to put out new versions that are not backwards compatible without major rework which is what has happened with the exim developers on exim 4.84. Quite frankly, this entire episode pisses me off.

I am sure that I will be able to work on this and get it solved. I am not going to abandon Exim4U.  Nevertheless, I do not want to set an over optimistic expectation on when a fix will be available.

Again, if anybody wants to contribute by working on Exim4U's exim configuration file, then I would appreciate your help.  Otherwise, I will work on this as soon as I am able.

Gordon




On 09/22/2014 08:00 PM, Shamim Shahriar wrote:
On 23/09/2014 00:32, Gordon Dickens wrote:
I have not tested exim4u with exim 4.84 and I may not have the resources or time to test it for quite a while, maybe for several months.  Harald Valkanover's suggestion to comment out the headers_remove statements that are causing problems may fix the problem. Other things to try would be:

- Disable subject tagging as described in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  Subject tagging may be disabled by setting the tag score in the web interface to be equal to or greater than the discard score for each user and domain.  This may or may not solve the problem but is worth a try.

- Disable Spamassassin by setting SpamRejectScore = 100 in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  I think that this would definitely solve the problem.

- Anybody that has the inclination is welcome to debug this problem.  Please post your solution so that it can be added to the stock exim4u config.

Otherwise, you need to run an exim version prior to 4.84 until someone has the time to study this further.

FYI,

Gordon

Hi Gordon

Thank you for the suggestions. The process of disabling features or removing global options, IMHO, is not a "fix", these are workarounds; and these workarounds are nothing but compromising the much needed features/functionalities that the users need/expect. Otherwise people would have used some other combination rather than Exim with exim4u or vexim. But as you stated, Exim v4.82 seem to be the last known functional setup, and hopefully people can still get by with that.

As for testing and sending feedbacks, I think the people who are suffering the most are not really "programmers" in the classical sense and are merely end users with functional knowledge of what is supposed to do happen at different configuration changes -- much of the v4.84 is implying that their knowledge, may be gathered over many years, are uselss -- irrespective of whether that is intended or a software glitch, and that is what got everyone befuddled. I for example am not happy with the defunct headers_remove section which, despite the non-effective solutions suggested so far, works flawlessly with v4.82, and the same lookup mysql works elsewhere except for the headers_remove section. This, as I understand, is inconsistency -- which needs "fixing" as opposed to taking a detour.

Please don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your suggestions and comments, and understand your lack of time for testing and debugging -- but that does not change the fact that both the vexim and exim4u community members (and users) are left with systems that they cannot patch, even if there is a major security issue, simply because that would make their setup disfunctional and useless. And I sincerely hope that proper solution will not take so long that by that time both the vexim and exim4u users will be forced to look for an alternate.

Just my 2p

Best regards
Shah


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

gldickens3
Administrator
BTW, the "security issue" that the exim developers fixed in 4.84 (and which is causing these problems) is completely trivial.  As an example, Debian is not even pushing an update for this on any of their supported OSs.  See:

https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-2972

At the bottom of that webpage, note the phrase "<no-dsa> (Minor issue)" for both Squeeze and Wheezy which means there will be no update because the issue is so minor that the Debian team decided not to bother.  So, the exim developers have decided to throw a huge monkey wrench in our works for something that is completely trivial.  That would be ok if they at least published guidelines on how to get around the incompatibilities that they introduced but they have not.

Part of my problem in fixing this issue is that I am running Debian and CentOS OSs, however, they are not even implementing this security update. So, I am going to have to install a new OS to even get to an exim version that has this update or figure out how to compile exim 4.84 on Debian or CentOS which, BTW, is NOT trivial.

Gordon



On 09/22/2014 09:08 PM, Gordon Dickens wrote:
Hi Shah,

I share your frustration.

It is highly unusual for software developers to put out new versions that are not backwards compatible without major rework which is what has happened with the exim developers on exim 4.84. Quite frankly, this entire episode pisses me off.

I am sure that I will be able to work on this and get it solved. I am not going to abandon Exim4U.  Nevertheless, I do not want to set an over optimistic expectation on when a fix will be available.

Again, if anybody wants to contribute by working on Exim4U's exim configuration file, then I would appreciate your help.  Otherwise, I will work on this as soon as I am able.

Gordon




On 09/22/2014 08:00 PM, Shamim Shahriar wrote:
On 23/09/2014 00:32, Gordon Dickens wrote:
I have not tested exim4u with exim 4.84 and I may not have the resources or time to test it for quite a while, maybe for several months.  Harald Valkanover's suggestion to comment out the headers_remove statements that are causing problems may fix the problem. Other things to try would be:

- Disable subject tagging as described in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  Subject tagging may be disabled by setting the tag score in the web interface to be equal to or greater than the discard score for each user and domain.  This may or may not solve the problem but is worth a try.

- Disable Spamassassin by setting SpamRejectScore = 100 in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  I think that this would definitely solve the problem.

- Anybody that has the inclination is welcome to debug this problem.  Please post your solution so that it can be added to the stock exim4u config.

Otherwise, you need to run an exim version prior to 4.84 until someone has the time to study this further.

FYI,

Gordon

Hi Gordon

Thank you for the suggestions. The process of disabling features or removing global options, IMHO, is not a "fix", these are workarounds; and these workarounds are nothing but compromising the much needed features/functionalities that the users need/expect. Otherwise people would have used some other combination rather than Exim with exim4u or vexim. But as you stated, Exim v4.82 seem to be the last known functional setup, and hopefully people can still get by with that.

As for testing and sending feedbacks, I think the people who are suffering the most are not really "programmers" in the classical sense and are merely end users with functional knowledge of what is supposed to do happen at different configuration changes -- much of the v4.84 is implying that their knowledge, may be gathered over many years, are uselss -- irrespective of whether that is intended or a software glitch, and that is what got everyone befuddled. I for example am not happy with the defunct headers_remove section which, despite the non-effective solutions suggested so far, works flawlessly with v4.82, and the same lookup mysql works elsewhere except for the headers_remove section. This, as I understand, is inconsistency -- which needs "fixing" as opposed to taking a detour.

Please don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your suggestions and comments, and understand your lack of time for testing and debugging -- but that does not change the fact that both the vexim and exim4u community members (and users) are left with systems that they cannot patch, even if there is a major security issue, simply because that would make their setup disfunctional and useless. And I sincerely hope that proper solution will not take so long that by that time both the vexim and exim4u users will be forced to look for an alternate.

Just my 2p

Best regards
Shah


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

valki

Hi!

 

+1 for the minor bug – but for lazy people like me who just want to keep up with freebsd’s port collection in a binary pkgng world… - I updated J

 

After reading through all the configs I came tot he conclusions that personally I don’t need that functionality. The mailsystem is running quite well since I made the changes, no increase in spam too.  Additionally I deactivated the transparent greylisting as it doesnt seem tob e state-of-the-art anymore (an evil spammailer will resend its spam anyway…)

 

For the headers_remove issue i commented out those 2 parts:

 

Around line 918

# exim4u Added this for spam processing for relay domains.

# exim4u header_remove to remove subject if spam or X-Spam-Report if not spam.

  ##headers_remove = ${if >={$acl_m_spamscore}{${lookup mysql{select domains.sa_tag * 10 from domains \

  ##              where domain = '${quote_mysql:$domain}' \

  ##              and domains.spamassassin = '1'}}} \

  ##              {Subject}{X-Spam-Report} \

  ##              }

 

Around line 1143:

# exim4u header_remove to remove subject if spam or X-Spam-Report if not spam.

  ##headers_remove = ${if >={$acl_m_spamscore}{${lookup mysql{select users.sa_tag * 10 from users,domains \

  ##              where localpart = '${quote_mysql:$local_part}' \

  ##              and domain = '${quote_mysql:$domain}' \

  ##              and users.on_spamassassin = '1' \

  ##              and users.domain_id=domains.domain_id }{$value}fail}} \

  ##              {Subject}{X-Spam-Report} \

  ##              }

 

Just try it out and it should work now with 4.84 without any issues. And please dont roast me for that klingon-style-solution J

 

And of course: If anyone finds the time to debug those snippets in detail – you are always welcome. My suggestion is that the mysql expand fails due to a change of syntax – but only in those two examples which are a little bit more complex than the other occurences which dont make any problem.

 

Oh yes – and credits go to my friend Karlheinz for several good hints!

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

Von: users [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Gordon Dickens
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. September 2014 03:36
An: Exim4U General Discussion
Betreff: Re: [Exim4U] exim 4.84

 

BTW, the "security issue" that the exim developers fixed in 4.84 (and which is causing these problems) is completely trivial.  As an example, Debian is not even pushing an update for this on any of their supported OSs.  See:

https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-2972

At the bottom of that webpage, note the phrase "<no-dsa> (Minor issue)" for both Squeeze and Wheezy which means there will be no update because the issue is so minor that the Debian team decided not to bother.  So, the exim developers have decided to throw a huge monkey wrench in our works for something that is completely trivial.  That would be ok if they at least published guidelines on how to get around the incompatibilities that they introduced but they have not.

Part of my problem in fixing this issue is that I am running Debian and CentOS OSs, however, they are not even implementing this security update. So, I am going to have to install a new OS to even get to an exim version that has this update or figure out how to compile exim 4.84 on Debian or CentOS which, BTW, is NOT trivial.

Gordon



On 09/22/2014 09:08 PM, Gordon Dickens wrote:

Hi Shah,

I share your frustration.

It is highly unusual for software developers to put out new versions that are not backwards compatible without major rework which is what has happened with the exim developers on exim 4.84. Quite frankly, this entire episode pisses me off.

I am sure that I will be able to work on this and get it solved. I am not going to abandon Exim4U.  Nevertheless, I do not want to set an over optimistic expectation on when a fix will be available.

Again, if anybody wants to contribute by working on Exim4U's exim configuration file, then I would appreciate your help.  Otherwise, I will work on this as soon as I am able.

Gordon




On 09/22/2014 08:00 PM, Shamim Shahriar wrote:

On 23/09/2014 00:32, Gordon Dickens wrote:

I have not tested exim4u with exim 4.84 and I may not have the resources or time to test it for quite a while, maybe for several months.  Harald Valkanover's suggestion to comment out the headers_remove statements that are causing problems may fix the problem. Other things to try would be:

- Disable subject tagging as described in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  Subject tagging may be disabled by setting the tag score in the web interface to be equal to or greater than the discard score for each user and domain.  This may or may not solve the problem but is worth a try.

- Disable Spamassassin by setting SpamRejectScore = 100 in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  I think that this would definitely solve the problem.

- Anybody that has the inclination is welcome to debug this problem.  Please post your solution so that it can be added to the stock exim4u config.

Otherwise, you need to run an exim version prior to 4.84 until someone has the time to study this further.

FYI,

Gordon

Hi Gordon

Thank you for the suggestions. The process of disabling features or removing global options, IMHO, is not a "fix", these are workarounds; and these workarounds are nothing but compromising the much needed features/functionalities that the users need/expect. Otherwise people would have used some other combination rather than Exim with exim4u or vexim. But as you stated, Exim v4.82 seem to be the last known functional setup, and hopefully people can still get by with that.

As for testing and sending feedbacks, I think the people who are suffering the most are not really "programmers" in the classical sense and are merely end users with functional knowledge of what is supposed to do happen at different configuration changes -- much of the v4.84 is implying that their knowledge, may be gathered over many years, are uselss -- irrespective of whether that is intended or a software glitch, and that is what got everyone befuddled. I for example am not happy with the defunct headers_remove section which, despite the non-effective solutions suggested so far, works flawlessly with v4.82, and the same lookup mysql works elsewhere except for the headers_remove section. This, as I understand, is inconsistency -- which needs "fixing" as opposed to taking a detour.

Please don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your suggestions and comments, and understand your lack of time for testing and debugging -- but that does not change the fact that both the vexim and exim4u community members (and users) are left with systems that they cannot patch, even if there is a major security issue, simply because that would make their setup disfunctional and useless. And I sincerely hope that proper solution will not take so long that by that time both the vexim and exim4u users will be forced to look for an alternate.

Just my 2p

Best regards
Shah



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users





_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users

 


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

gldickens3
Administrator
Thanks for the update Valki.  Let me know if you make any other progress too.

Gordon

On 09/23/2014 03:20 AM, Valkanover Harald wrote:

Hi!

 

+1 for the minor bug – but for lazy people like me who just want to keep up with freebsd’s port collection in a binary pkgng world… - I updated J

 

After reading through all the configs I came tot he conclusions that personally I don’t need that functionality. The mailsystem is running quite well since I made the changes, no increase in spam too.  Additionally I deactivated the transparent greylisting as it doesnt seem tob e state-of-the-art anymore (an evil spammailer will resend its spam anyway…)

 

For the headers_remove issue i commented out those 2 parts:

 

Around line 918

# exim4u Added this for spam processing for relay domains.

# exim4u header_remove to remove subject if spam or X-Spam-Report if not spam.

  ##headers_remove = ${if >={$acl_m_spamscore}{${lookup mysql{select domains.sa_tag * 10 from domains \

  ##              where domain = '${quote_mysql:$domain}' \

  ##              and domains.spamassassin = '1'}}} \

  ##              {Subject}{X-Spam-Report} \

  ##              }

 

Around line 1143:

# exim4u header_remove to remove subject if spam or X-Spam-Report if not spam.

  ##headers_remove = ${if >={$acl_m_spamscore}{${lookup mysql{select users.sa_tag * 10 from users,domains \

  ##              where localpart = '${quote_mysql:$local_part}' \

  ##              and domain = '${quote_mysql:$domain}' \

  ##              and users.on_spamassassin = '1' \

  ##              and users.domain_id=domains.domain_id }{$value}fail}} \

  ##              {Subject}{X-Spam-Report} \

  ##              }

 

Just try it out and it should work now with 4.84 without any issues. And please dont roast me for that klingon-style-solution J

 

And of course: If anyone finds the time to debug those snippets in detail – you are always welcome. My suggestion is that the mysql expand fails due to a change of syntax – but only in those two examples which are a little bit more complex than the other occurences which dont make any problem.

 

Oh yes – and credits go to my friend Karlheinz for several good hints!

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

Von: users [[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Gordon Dickens
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. September 2014 03:36
An: Exim4U General Discussion
Betreff: Re: [Exim4U] exim 4.84

 

BTW, the "security issue" that the exim developers fixed in 4.84 (and which is causing these problems) is completely trivial.  As an example, Debian is not even pushing an update for this on any of their supported OSs.  See:

https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-2972

At the bottom of that webpage, note the phrase "<no-dsa> (Minor issue)" for both Squeeze and Wheezy which means there will be no update because the issue is so minor that the Debian team decided not to bother.  So, the exim developers have decided to throw a huge monkey wrench in our works for something that is completely trivial.  That would be ok if they at least published guidelines on how to get around the incompatibilities that they introduced but they have not.

Part of my problem in fixing this issue is that I am running Debian and CentOS OSs, however, they are not even implementing this security update. So, I am going to have to install a new OS to even get to an exim version that has this update or figure out how to compile exim 4.84 on Debian or CentOS which, BTW, is NOT trivial.

Gordon



On 09/22/2014 09:08 PM, Gordon Dickens wrote:

Hi Shah,

I share your frustration.

It is highly unusual for software developers to put out new versions that are not backwards compatible without major rework which is what has happened with the exim developers on exim 4.84. Quite frankly, this entire episode pisses me off.

I am sure that I will be able to work on this and get it solved. I am not going to abandon Exim4U.  Nevertheless, I do not want to set an over optimistic expectation on when a fix will be available.

Again, if anybody wants to contribute by working on Exim4U's exim configuration file, then I would appreciate your help.  Otherwise, I will work on this as soon as I am able.

Gordon




On 09/22/2014 08:00 PM, Shamim Shahriar wrote:

On 23/09/2014 00:32, Gordon Dickens wrote:

I have not tested exim4u with exim 4.84 and I may not have the resources or time to test it for quite a while, maybe for several months.  Harald Valkanover's suggestion to comment out the headers_remove statements that are causing problems may fix the problem. Other things to try would be:

- Disable subject tagging as described in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  Subject tagging may be disabled by setting the tag score in the web interface to be equal to or greater than the discard score for each user and domain.  This may or may not solve the problem but is worth a try.

- Disable Spamassassin by setting SpamRejectScore = 100 in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  I think that this would definitely solve the problem.

- Anybody that has the inclination is welcome to debug this problem.  Please post your solution so that it can be added to the stock exim4u config.

Otherwise, you need to run an exim version prior to 4.84 until someone has the time to study this further.

FYI,

Gordon

Hi Gordon

Thank you for the suggestions. The process of disabling features or removing global options, IMHO, is not a "fix", these are workarounds; and these workarounds are nothing but compromising the much needed features/functionalities that the users need/expect. Otherwise people would have used some other combination rather than Exim with exim4u or vexim. But as you stated, Exim v4.82 seem to be the last known functional setup, and hopefully people can still get by with that.

As for testing and sending feedbacks, I think the people who are suffering the most are not really "programmers" in the classical sense and are merely end users with functional knowledge of what is supposed to do happen at different configuration changes -- much of the v4.84 is implying that their knowledge, may be gathered over many years, are uselss -- irrespective of whether that is intended or a software glitch, and that is what got everyone befuddled. I for example am not happy with the defunct headers_remove section which, despite the non-effective solutions suggested so far, works flawlessly with v4.82, and the same lookup mysql works elsewhere except for the headers_remove section. This, as I understand, is inconsistency -- which needs "fixing" as opposed to taking a detour.

Please don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your suggestions and comments, and understand your lack of time for testing and debugging -- but that does not change the fact that both the vexim and exim4u community members (and users) are left with systems that they cannot patch, even if there is a major security issue, simply because that would make their setup disfunctional and useless. And I sincerely hope that proper solution will not take so long that by that time both the vexim and exim4u users will be forced to look for an alternate.

Just my 2p

Best regards
Shah



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users





_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users

 



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

gldickens3
Administrator
In reply to this post by Shamim Shahriar
Hi Shah,

You mentioned Vexim in the attached post and, in a post on the  [hidden email] mailing list, you said that you were using Vexim.  So, please clarify; Are you using Exim4U or Vexim?

Also, others have mentioned Vexim too.  So, I ask the same question of Rimas Kudelis, Harald Valkanover and anyone else having this problem;  Are you using Exim4U or Vexim?

Thanks,

Gordon




On 09/22/2014 08:00 PM, Shamim Shahriar wrote:
On 23/09/2014 00:32, Gordon Dickens wrote:
I have not tested exim4u with exim 4.84 and I may not have the resources or time to test it for quite a while, maybe for several months.  Harald Valkanover's suggestion to comment out the headers_remove statements that are causing problems may fix the problem. Other things to try would be:

- Disable subject tagging as described in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  Subject tagging may be disabled by setting the tag score in the web interface to be equal to or greater than the discard score for each user and domain.  This may or may not solve the problem but is worth a try.

- Disable Spamassassin by setting SpamRejectScore = 100 in exim4u_global_spam_virus.  I think that this would definitely solve the problem.

- Anybody that has the inclination is welcome to debug this problem.  Please post your solution so that it can be added to the stock exim4u config.

Otherwise, you need to run an exim version prior to 4.84 until someone has the time to study this further.

FYI,

Gordon

Hi Gordon

Thank you for the suggestions. The process of disabling features or removing global options, IMHO, is not a "fix", these are workarounds; and these workarounds are nothing but compromising the much needed features/functionalities that the users need/expect. Otherwise people would have used some other combination rather than Exim with exim4u or vexim. But as you stated, Exim v4.82 seem to be the last known functional setup, and hopefully people can still get by with that.

As for testing and sending feedbacks, I think the people who are suffering the most are not really "programmers" in the classical sense and are merely end users with functional knowledge of what is supposed to do happen at different configuration changes -- much of the v4.84 is implying that their knowledge, may be gathered over many years, are uselss -- irrespective of whether that is intended or a software glitch, and that is what got everyone befuddled. I for example am not happy with the defunct headers_remove section which, despite the non-effective solutions suggested so far, works flawlessly with v4.82, and the same lookup mysql works elsewhere except for the headers_remove section. This, as I understand, is inconsistency -- which needs "fixing" as opposed to taking a detour.

Please don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your suggestions and comments, and understand your lack of time for testing and debugging -- but that does not change the fact that both the vexim and exim4u community members (and users) are left with systems that they cannot patch, even if there is a major security issue, simply because that would make their setup disfunctional and useless. And I sincerely hope that proper solution will not take so long that by that time both the vexim and exim4u users will be forced to look for an alternate.

Just my 2p

Best regards
Shah


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exim 4.84

Shamim Shahriar


On 23 Sep 2014 08:52, "Gordon Dickens" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Shah,
>
> You mentioned Vexim in the attached post and, in a post on the  [hidden email] mailing list, you said that you were using Vexim.  So, please clarify; Are you using Exim4U or Vexim?
>
> Also, others have mentioned Vexim too.  So, I ask the same question of Rimas Kudelis, Harald Valkanover and anyone else having this problem;  Are you using Exim4U or Vexim?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Gordon
>
>

Hi Gordon

I am using vexim, on FreeBSD 9 release, currently with exim 4.82. We made some customisation for the configure in Exim, and plenty of "improvements" for the gui in vexim. Once i noticed the problems after updating Exim in one of the test servers, Google brought me to Exim4u list as the problems were similar. And as it seems, solution to one will eventually bring solution to all. Hence i put the discussion both to exim4u and Exim-user list.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

Thanks
Shah


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://exim4u.org/mailman/listinfo/users
123