Bug 1369596

Summary: support passing -X and/or -x options to mimedefang(8)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: James Ralston <ralston>
Component: mimedefangAssignee: Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla>
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: goodmirek, ralston, redhat-bugzilla
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-01 10:42:48 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description James Ralston 2016-08-23 21:58:37 UTC 
Description of problem:

We wish to suppress the X-Scanned-By header that MIMEDefang adds. This can be accomplished by passing either -X or -x "" to mimedefang(8), but neither the mimedefang-wrapper script nor redhat/mimedefang-init.in provides a mechanism for /etc/sysconfig/mimedefang to indicate that these options should be passed to mimedefang(8).

Please add a way for /etc/sysconfig/mimedefang to indicate that these options should be passed to mimedefang(8). For patches to do this, see these email threads:

http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2003-April/013920.html
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2003-June/014828.html

Full disclosure: as per the above threads, at the time, Dianne (nee David) Skoll, the author of MIMEDefang, wished to discourage use of the -X option. So out of respect for the author, it may be appropriate to refrain from demonstrating in /etc/sysconfig/mimedefang how to invoke the -X/-x options, or checking whether the author's objection to using the -X/-x options still stands.

(I'm filing against rawhide, but I'm primarily interested in seeing this addressed for EPEL7.)
Comment 1 Robert Scheck 2016-08-24 21:17:14 UTC 
While I get your point, I feel uncomfortable with downstream-only changes.

Maybe I am overlooking something, but shouldn't $MD_EXTRA do the trick, if
you set -X/-x there?
Comment 2 James Ralston 2016-08-27 21:22:20 UTC 
Ah; good catch: you can indeed use $MD_EXTRA to pass at least -X.

The only problem I see with using $MD_EXTRA is if you actually want to pass a -x argument with shell metacharacters (e.g., spaces), the shell quoting required is going to be pretty heinous, due to the way the wrapper script expands the arguments.

But, pragmatically, I don't really care about that. (We just need -X, which doesn't require any quoting hurdles.)

If you don't want to bother to raise the -X/-x issue with upstream again, feel free to close as WONTFIX.