Systemd, Spamassassin, and the Missing Portreserve Package
tomek at pipebreaker.pl
Thu Feb 5 21:23:19 UTC 2015
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Tom Rivers wrote:
> On 2/5/2015 15:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >why in the world does SA need portreserve?
> To be honest, I'm not sure that SA is the package that needs it. It is
> actually systemd that references it in the spamassassin.service file:
SA needs portreserve exactly for the reason portreserve was written:
SA assigned port is 783, and there's a risk portmap will hijack it.
Missing dependency seems like packaging bug.
Cleaner way would be to implement socket activation in spamd. I've
looked into doing this. After looking into spamd I have no idea
how to implement sock-act cleanly.
Tomasz Torcz Morality must always be based on practicality.
xmpp: zdzichubg at chrome.pl -- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
More information about the devel