search for: l472

Hi, I'm not entirely sure whether this issue is with exim or with dovecot. First some background: I'm using exim with dovecot-auth which in turn is using LDAP for authentication. When using AUTH PLAIN with the optional initial response argument, everything is fine. However when using AUTH PLAIN without the optional response argument, instead of getting an empty challenge ("334

...> This FAIL status can be returned by the driver itself, but -- in this >> case more likely -- the Dovecot driver in Exim also returns FAIL status >> when Dovecot auth service returns "FAIL": >> >> https://github.com/Exim/exim/blob/master/src/src/auths/dovecot.c#L472 >> >> So, this may very well be an issue triggered by Dovecot. What version of >> Dovecot is this? Some things were modified in initial response handling >> recently (v2.3) and I may have messed up something. >> >> Does Dovecot log anything interesting with auth_...

....c#L3665 > > This FAIL status can be returned by the driver itself, but -- in this > case more likely -- the Dovecot driver in Exim also returns FAIL status > when Dovecot auth service returns "FAIL": > > https://github.com/Exim/exim/blob/master/src/src/auths/dovecot.c#L472 > > So, this may very well be an issue triggered by Dovecot. What version of > Dovecot is this? Some things were modified in initial response handling > recently (v2.3) and I may have messed up something. > > Does Dovecot log anything interesting with auth_verbose and auth_debug...

...tatus can be returned by the driver itself, but -- in this >>> case more likely -- the Dovecot driver in Exim also returns FAIL status >>> when Dovecot auth service returns "FAIL": >>> >>> https://github.com/Exim/exim/blob/master/src/src/auths/dovecot.c#L472 >>> >>> So, this may very well be an issue triggered by Dovecot. What version of >>> Dovecot is this? Some things were modified in initial response handling >>> recently (v2.3) and I may have messed up something. >>> >>> Does Dovecot log anythin...

...9;]) > + http.putheader("Authorization", transfer.signed_ticket) > + http.putheader("Range", str(offset) + "-" + str(count+offset-1)) > We use "bytes=start-end" See https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-imageio/blob/master/daemon/test/server_test.py#L472 Also formatting cab be nicer and more consistent like this: "bytes=%d-%d" % (offset, offset + count - 1) + http.endheaders() > + > + r = http.getresponse() > + if r.status != 200: > + h['transfer_service'].pause() > + h['failed'...

...quot;Authorization", transfer.signed_ticket) > +    http.putheader("Range", str(offset) + "-" + str(count+offset-1)) > > > We use "bytes=start-end" > > See > https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-imageio/blob/master/daemon/test/server_test.py#L472 > > Also formatting cab be nicer and more consistent like this: > >     "bytes=%d-%d" % (offset, offset + count - 1) > > +    http.endheaders() > + > +    r = http.getresponse() > +    if r.status != 200: > +        h['transfer_ser...

Mainly minor fixes and code cleanups over the v4 patch. There are still several problems with this patch, but it is in a reviewable state, especially the Python code. Rich.