🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <858683625snz@wash.demon.co.uk>
   john@wash.demon.co.uk (John Washington) writes:
> On Monday, in article <s858637073snx@warren.demon.co.uk>
>      leveret@warren.demon.co.uk "Nick Leverton" wrote:
> NL> There's a bit of an "oooh, nasty" in KA9Q's mailkill handling.  The
> NL> variable 'bad_sender' in smtpserv.c is global (only one copy for the
> NL> system), where it should be locally allocated in sptpserv() (one per
> NL> receive process).  This means that, when you have two receives going in
> (and 2 recvs is quite frequent for me, I don't know if that's true
> for everyone)

Doesn't seem to happen that often for me.

> NL> parallel, a rejection on one will also cause the other, valid, stream to
> NL> perform a mail rejection, if it is itself inbetween the "MAIL FROM" and
> NL> "DATA" stages, inclusive, of the protocol.
> Ouch.  And what about the other statics alongside, 'fail', 'default_address'
> and 'Ssmtp'?  Looks easy to move 'bad_sender' into smtpserv(), but the
> others are used by more than one function.

I changed the fail one quite easily for DNOS, I'll have to have a look
at the others.

[snip]
> NL> to track through all the implications of this.  Note that there is
> NL> another independent variable also called fail in mailit().
> Yuck, yuck, YUCK.  Grrrr.
> And, while we're discussing yucky coding style, someone since
> 2.12 has decided to lay out the smtpserv.c code to his
> personal taste, including indenting the function names.  By
> doing this he's broken the convention in ka9q source that
> has all function definitions starting in column 1, so that
> you can grep for 'funcname' at the start of the line and
> find that definition easily.

Horrible isn't it it makes following the code a lot harder.

> Talking of mailkill, what would be really nice would be some
> scheme whereby additions could be made automatically.
> I'm imagining some group like demon.mailkill where people
> would post addresses of recent junk, and ka9q would
> autoextract and update mailkill.  Or some agreed format, like:

Trouble is it would be very easy to abuse unless it was moderated
and how can the moderator tell if that person has really sent spam/uce
or not?
[snip]

-- 
Robert Mortimer
       "Trust the computer The computer is your fiend"
       http://www.maghmell.demon.co.uk/dispc/index.html