Re: can't read SMFIC_BODY reply packet header: Success
Hi, Todd,
On 11/30/11 6:00 PM, Todd Lyons wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld
> <R.E.Sonneveld_at_sonnection.nl> wrote:
>>> It must be that he rebuilt the srpm himself because the package
>> Well, then I don't understand why it didn't work and why it works now. The
>> only extra parameter I used during ./configure was --prefix to install
>> opendkim on a different location. Furthermore, I discovered that the system
>> admin (for some reason I don't know) first installed dkim-milter, then later
>> installed (so probably compiled?) opendkim. After that, he removed
>> dkim-milter. So my installation was on a system _without_ dkim-milter, while
>> his installation was on a system _with_ dkim-milter. Don't know whether this
>> could explain these problems?
> Be careful with your terminology.
Well, I am :-)
> dkim-milter is the old software
> that has not been maintained for about 3 years now. opendkim is the
> software that Murray forked from and expanded upon dkim-milter (he was
> the original author there as well).
Yep, I know that.
> I suspect you meant opendkim :-)
No, I mean: dkim-milter. So to repeat the steps that were taken:
1. Some time ago the sysadmin first installed dkim-milter (for some reason)
2. Then later on, he installed opendkim 2.4.2 on the same system
3. Some time later he removed dkim-milter
4. Some time later, when I first logged in on the system, I did some
testing with the combination of Postfix 2.6.6 - opendkim 2.4.2, with
the "can't read SMFIC_BODY reply packet header: Success" problem as
a result
5. Then, yesterday, I first installed the latest version of Postfix
(2.8.7). Testing Postfix 2.8.7 - opendkim 2.4.2: still the same problem
6. Then I installed opendkim 2.4.2 from scratch again with
--enable-debug and --prefix
7. Again testing: now it works!
8. Then: remove the newly installed (with debug) opendkim and
re-installed it from scratch without the --enable-debug.
9. Again testing: it still works.
So to repeat what I wrote:
> So my installation was on a system _without_ dkim-milter, while
> his installation was on a system _with_ dkim-milter.
I should have written: 'So my installation of OpenDKIM 2.4.2 was on a
system where dkim-milter was no longer installed, while his (the
sysadmin's) installation of OpenDKIM 2.4.2 was on a system where
dkim-milter was still present.
> At any rate, it really sounds like the admin built it from source but
> something botched with the openssl detection. Or built it on some
> other system with one set of libs and then copied it over to your
> system which had slightly different libs (though ABI is not supposed
> to change, so it would have given a shared library loader error...in
> theory).
I've had no chance to ask the sysadmin, I just got his mail address from
my customer and definitely will ask as soon as I can.
Thanks,
/rolf
Received on Wed Nov 30 2011 - 18:50:43 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:20:21 PST