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(a)chrome.pl -- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen