[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#933679: qpsmtpd: No Received header if received_hook configured



Package: qpsmtpd
Version: 0.94-4
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

the qpsmtpd included in Debian Buster doesn't handle the received hook
correctly. Instead of prepending the line to the headers it is returned
to the caller (which means that no Received header is added at all).

I will send a patch shortly.

(I think this was also present in Debian Stretch, and I will check
upstream next.)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.0
  APT prefers oldstable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'oldstable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-5-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages qpsmtpd depends on:
ii  adduser                          3.118
ii  debconf                          1.5.71
ii  libclamav-client-perl            0.11-2
ii  libdigest-hmac-perl              1.03+dfsg-2
ii  libio-socket-inet6-perl          2.72-2
ii  libipc-shareable-perl            0.61-2
ii  libmail-spf-perl                 2.9.0-4
ii  libmailtools-perl                2.18-1
ii  libnet-dns-perl                  1.19-1
ii  libsocket6-perl                  0.29-1+b1
ii  lsb-base                         10.2019051400
ii  perl                             5.28.1-6
ii  perl-modules-5.24 [libnet-perl]  5.24.1-3+deb9u5

qpsmtpd recommends no packages.

Versions of packages qpsmtpd suggests:
pn  clamav-daemon     <none>
pn  libnet-ldap-perl  <none>
ii  spamassassin      3.4.2-1
pn  tinycdb           <none>

-- Configuration Files:
/etc/qpsmtpd/badmailfrom changed [not included]
/etc/qpsmtpd/logging changed [not included]
/etc/qpsmtpd/plugins changed [not included]

-- debconf information excluded


Reply to: