ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking

[Darren Pilgrim]

The following reply was made to PR ports/177416; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Darren Pilgrim <ports.maintainer at evilphi.com>
To: Paul Beard <paulbeard at gmail.com>
Cc: "bug-followup at FreeBSD.org" <bug-followup at FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint
 checking
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:20:55 -0700

 On 2013-03-28 21:43, Paul Beard wrote:
 > I have rebuilt/reinstalled the lot since then and get the same
 > result. So that's not it. Unless the implication is that a new system
 > could exhibit this behavior.
 
 There are steps between what's been done so far and a brand new system. 
   A complete refetch and reinstall of everything perl is one such step.
 
 > As noted, there are other instances of this reported though they are
 > vanishingly rare.   So there may be something in the almost 20 year old
 > code (some of the modules have comment/copyright dates from the mid
 > 90s) that only shows up under rare confluences of events.
 
 That's more or less my point, yes.  You have about 5 times as many p5 
 ports as I've ever seen on one system.
 
 > And to be clear, it's not the taint check alone: it's the fact that
 > the daemonize option no longer works. There's no runtime argument or
 > config option for that. It just doesn't work at all. So running it as
 > a service fails.
 
 The thing is I can't reproduce this behaviour.  I even ran it on a 
 RELENG_6 system and it worked fine there.
 
 > I don't think this is a bug in postgrey which is why I worded the
 > subject as I did. I think the misfeature is in the modules or perhaps
 > in some unique aspect of my kernel/userland.
 
 But it's a PR for the mail/postgrey port.  It sounds like it's 
 reasonable to close this PR.