dovecot - Aug 2016 - [patch] Improved error checking for the dovecot-antispam-plugin

Hi Harlan,

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Harlan Stenn <harlan at pfcs.com>
wrote:
> On 8/16/16 1:24 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hopefully this is the right channel for such a patch. I have a minor
>> enhancement to submit for the antispam plugin
>>
>>   http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-antispam-plugin
>>
>> It adds minimal error checking for the sendmail_binary, otherwise the
>> reported error in case of a missing binary or one with missing
>> permissions is generic and not useful.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Robert
>
> Robert, I like that you did this.
>
> Beyond that and without even looking at the actual code, I'm curious
why
> you:
>
> +    if (access(cfg->binary, F_OK) == -1)
> +    {
> +    mail_storage_set_error(storage, MAIL_ERROR_TEMP, "mail_sendmail
> file does not exist");
>
> instead of finding a way to include the value of cfg->binary in the
> error message string.
>
> This might not be needed if it's really obvious from the config file
> what the path to the executable is, but if there is any doubt it might
> be friendlier to show the exact path with the problem.  I'd also be
> inclined to show the decoded value of errno instead of assuming that
> 'mail_sendmail file does not exist'.
>
> Perhaps something along the lines of:
>
>         "access(%s, F_OK) failed: %m", cfg->binary
>
> if that makes sense.
Thanks for the review . I was not sure that it's OK to show the path
to the script in an error message which will be shown to the user. But
I have no issue in resending a new version of the patch with better
error reporting, will do so in the following days.

Robert



-- 
http://robert.muntea.nu/

(snip)
> I have no issue in resending a new version of the patch with better
> error reporting, will do so in the following days.
>
> Robert
I've attached a second version of the patch, feel free to consider any
of them for inclusion.

Thanks,

Robert


-- 
http://robert.muntea.nu/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: validate_sendmail.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1150 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20160818/1f75f868/attachment-0001.bin>

Robert,

First, thanks!

Second, I'm not a committer on the dovecot project. But I've written a
lot of software where if an end user has a problem and either they want to know
why or if they report it and ask for help, I've found it is MUCH better to
have enough info in the message given to the user/logged somewhere. Something
like:

"subroutine: open(%s) failed: %m"

It reduces our support load and gives us the information we need to quickly
resolve issues.

Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity and typos
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Robert Munteanu <robert.munteanu at
gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>> I have no issue in resending a new version of the patch with better
>> error reporting, will do so in the following days.
>> 
>> Robert
> 
> I've attached a second version of the patch, feel free to consider any
> of them for inclusion.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://robert.muntea.nu/
> <validate_sendmail.patch>

Hi,

Has this slipped off the radar or is it somehow not suitable for inclusion?

Thanks,

Robert

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Robert Munteanu
<robert.munteanu at gmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>
>> I have no issue in resending a new version of the patch with better
>> error reporting, will do so in the following days.
>>
>> Robert
>
> I've attached a second version of the patch, feel free to consider any
> of them for inclusion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert
>
>
> --
> http://robert.muntea.nu/


-- 
http://robert.muntea.nu/