Bug 102956
Summary: | Entry for spamd (spamassassin) missing in /etc/services | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> |
Component: | spamassassin | Assignee: | Warren Togami <wtogami> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | gt |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i386 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2005-04-29 05:18:39 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Nils Philippsen
2003-08-23 08:51:56 UTC
spamassassin should register with IANA. :) Indeed it should. But from looking at http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480 it seems like this won't happen soon (someone needs to write up an RFC for the spamd protocol beforehands which is unlikely to happen soon due to the narrow scope of the protocol). Would it be better if the spamassassin RPM added the entry as a "local service" to the end of /etc/services on install? On the other hand I just noticed that portmap ignores my manual entry in /etc/services and rpc.mounted again landed on spamd's port... Filed as #102989. Yeah, I didn't think rpc really actaully avoided stuff in /etc/services... it's landed on the lpr port before. :/ *** Bug 115958 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Same here, adding spamd to /etc/services does not help. So it looks like the best solution is to just start spamd before any rpc services. Is this still an issue with FC3 or FC4? This entry is missing on FC3 and FC4, in the setup as well as in the spamassassin package. I don't know if anything has changed regarding the behaviour of bindresvport() and ports listed in /etc/services (see bug #102989). And btw, why is this filed against spamassassin when /etc/services is owned by the "setup" package? It was originally with setup, but since the spamassassin port wasn't registered with IANA (see comments #1 and #2) Bill moved it over to spamassassin itself so the package would append the port to /etc/services when installed (or something like that). Isn't that an awfully fragile way of doing it? Depending on how it's done ;-P. Anyway, unless bug #102989 isn't solved, we could rather defer the issue, what do you think? Agreed Since Bug 102989 is NOTABUG, and this is meaningless without that bug, closing NOTABUG here. Please open a new bug if you think of a better solution. |