[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Technical Update] Qmail SMTP Authentication -> RFC 3848
- To: qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [Technical Update] Qmail SMTP Authentication -> RFC 3848
- From: Roger Merchberger <zmerch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:04:29 -0500
- Delivered-to: de5-qmail@sws5.ornl.gov
- Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
- In-reply-to: <20050201144650.OZB18886.dhtux121.in-ecc.com@samir>
- Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
- References: <3.0.6.32.20050127210657.009176d0@orion.fehnet.de>
Rumor has it that Samir Noshy may have mentioned these words:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erwin Hoffmann [mailto:feh@xxxxxxxxx]
> At 09:51 27.01.05 +0200, Samir Noshy wrote:
> >Dear Erwin,
> >
> >After I patched the qmail-1.03 source directory and run make, I got the
> >following error:
[snip]
patching file qmail-smtpd.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 23.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 53.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 70 (offset 6 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 129 (offset 5 lines).
Hunk #5 FAILED at 238.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 310.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 330.
Hunk #8 succeeded at 554 (offset 78 lines).
Hunk #9 succeeded at 726 (offset 5 lines).
5 out of 9 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file qmail-smtpd.c.rej
From this, you did *not* patch qmail, at least not correctly. Every
'FAILED' chunk is a section of code that did not get updated, therefore
will not compile correctly. You will need to go through the patch files by
hand and figure out where the failed chunks should actually go, then modify
the patches to apply cleanly.
I'm also attempting on getting SMTP AUTH working on my system, and it seems
none of the SMTP AUTH patches apply cleanly to netqmail 1.05 -- and I have
a few other minor but necessary patches to it as well. I'm still debating on:
1) Just getting Dr. Hoffmann's patch working with my setup, or
2) starting from scratch with netqmail 1.05, then getting Dr. Hoffmann's
patch to apply cleanly to it, then getting the other patches I use (mainly
the qregex patch, and the Netscape bug workaround patch) to apply cleanly
to that.
#2 would be better for the community at large, but would also take a lot
more effort. If enough people convince me that the extra effort of #2
would help them, I will take the extra time and go that route.
HTH,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
_±±_ zmerch@xxxxxxxxxxx
(©||®) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
_)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.