dkim-milter

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Hirohisa Yamaguchi wrote:
> 2. dkim-filter does not build with _FFR_ANTICIPATE_SENDMAIL_MUNGE

Fixed.

> 3. dkim-filter does not build with _FFR_SELECTOR_HEADER

Fixed, but the warning at the end about data comparisons are interesting. 
I'll try to get onto my amd64 box here and try it.

Looking into the others.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Hirohisa Yamaguchi wrote:
> 1. devtools/bin/Build does not copy(symlink) dkim-keygen.sh to
>    obj.`uname -s`.`uname -r`.`uname -m`/dkim-filter/
>    and install dkim-keygen fails.

Fixed.

> 4. libdkim does not build with bld_LIBDKIM_SHARED true

I'll need to consult with the devtools maintainers for a solution to this 
one.

At Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:48:53 -0700 (PDT),
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Hirohisa Yamaguchi wrote:
> > 3. dkim-filter does not build with _FFR_SELECTOR_HEADER
> 
> Fixed, but the warning at the end about data comparisons are interesting. 
> I'll try to get onto my amd64 box here and try it.

Those warnings still shown with Beta12.


  dkim-filter.c: In function 'main':
  dkim-filter.c:4489: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type
  dkim-filter.c:4496: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of data type

$ grep -n '\<tmo\>' dkim-filter/dkim-filter.c
331:unsigned int tmo;				/* DNS timeout */
4295:	tmo = DEFTIMEOUT;
4489:				tmo = ULONG_MAX;
4493:				tmo = strtoul(optarg, &p, 10);
4496:			if (tmo == ULONG_MAX || errno != 0 || *p != '\0')
4789:		if (tmo == DEFTIMEOUT)
4790:			(void) config_get(cfg, "DNSTimeout", &tmo, sizeof tmo);
6069:	                    &tmo, sizeof tmo);


Using ULONG_MAX against (unsigned int) seems to be inappropriate.


-- 

	Hirohisa Yamaguchi
	  umq.461@...

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Hirohisa Yamaguchi wrote:
>> Fixed, but the warning at the end about data comparisons are interesting.
>> I'll try to get onto my amd64 box here and try it.
>
> Those warnings still shown with Beta12.
>[...]

Try the attached patch.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Hirohisa Yamaguchi wrote:
>>> Fixed, but the warning at the end about data comparisons are interesting.
>>> I'll try to get onto my amd64 box here and try it.
>> 
>> Those warnings still shown with Beta12.
>> [...]
>
> Try the attached patch.

Actually, this patch is better (and fixes a similar problem elsewhere in 
the same file).

At Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:51:43 -0800 (PST),
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Hirohisa Yamaguchi wrote:
> >> Fixed, but the warning at the end about data comparisons are interesting.
> >> I'll try to get onto my amd64 box here and try it.

> > Those warnings still shown with Beta12.
> >[...]

> Try the attached patch.

looks okay.

-- 

	Hirohisa Yamaguchi
	  umq.461@...

At Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:45:20 -0800 (PST),
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Hirohisa Yamaguchi wrote:
> >>> Fixed, but the warning at the end about data comparisons are interesting.
> >>> I'll try to get onto my amd64 box here and try it.
> >>
> >> Those warnings still shown with Beta12.
> >> [...]
> >
> > Try the attached patch.
> 
> Actually, this patch is better (and fixes a similar problem elsewhere
> in the same file).

The patch looks okay.
... Does -F option have no similar problem?


-- 
end

	Hirohisa Yamaguchi
	  umq.461@...

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Hirohisa Yamaguchi wrote:
> The patch looks okay.
> ... Does -F option have no similar problem?

Since you're not getting warnings for it, then time_t is unsigned long 
already (the others were unsigned int) and we don't need to test for 
UINT_MAX.