Thread (11 messages) flat view 11 messages, 3 authors, 2021-05-14

Re: [PATCH] git-send-email: add sendmailCommand option

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
Date: 2021-05-12 09:28:35

On Tue, May 11 2021, Gregory Anders wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/git-send-email.txt b/Documentation/git-send-email.txt
index 93708aefea..d9fe8cb7c0 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-send-email.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-send-email.txt
@@ -159,13 +159,23 @@ Sending
 ~~~~~~~
 
 --envelope-sender=<address>::
-	Specify the envelope sender used to send the emails.
-	This is useful if your default address is not the address that is
-	subscribed to a list. In order to use the 'From' address, set the
-	value to "auto". If you use the sendmail binary, you must have
-	suitable privileges for the -f parameter.  Default is the value of the
-	`sendemail.envelopeSender` configuration variable; if that is
-	unspecified, choosing the envelope sender is left to your MTA.
+	Specify the envelope sender used to send the emails.  This is
+	useful if your default address is not the address that is
+	subscribed to a list. In order to use the 'From' address, set
+	the value to "auto". If you use the sendmail binary, you must
+	have suitable privileges for the -f parameter.  Default is the
+	value of the `sendemail.envelopeSender` configuration variable;
+	if that is unspecified, choosing the envelope sender is left to
+	your MTA.
Please don't include word-wrapping for unrelated changes in the main
patch.
-	$smtp_server ||= 'localhost'; # could be 127.0.0.1, too... *shrug*
+
+	if (!defined $sendmail_command) {
+		$smtp_server = 'localhost'; # could be 127.0.0.1, too... *shrug*
+	}
 }
This "let's not accept a 0" change seems unrelated & should be split
into a prep cleanup / refactoring patch. On the one hand it's sensible,
on the other nobody cares about having a command named "0" in their path
(or a hostname), so I think it's fine to have the ||= Perl idiom leak
out here.

But also, this just seems like confusing logic. Per your docs "your
sendmailCommand has precedence over smtpServer.".

Why not make this "if not $sendmail_command" part of the top-level check
here (the if this one is nested under), which is only done if
$smtp_sever is not defined, if $sendmail_command is defined we don't
care about $smtp_server later on, no?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 if ($compose && $compose > 0) {
@@ -1490,14 +1497,15 @@ sub send_message {
 
 	unshift (@sendmail_parameters, @smtp_server_options);
 
+	if (file_name_is_absolute($smtp_server)) {
+		# Preserved for backward compatibility
+		$sendmail_command ||= $smtp_server;
+	}
+
 	if ($dry_run) {
 		# We don't want to send the email.
-	} elsif (file_name_is_absolute($smtp_server)) {
-		my $pid = open my $sm, '|-';
-		defined $pid or die $!;
-		if (!$pid) {
-			exec($smtp_server, @sendmail_parameters) or die $!;
-		}
+	} elsif (defined $sendmail_command) {
+		open my $sm, '|-', "$sendmail_command @sendmail_parameters";
Can we really not avoid moving from exec-as-list so Perl quotes
everything, to doing our own interpolation here? It looks like the tests
don't check arguments with whitespace (which should fail with this
change).
 		print $sm "$header\n$message";
 		close $sm or die $!;
 	} else {
I've just skimmed the previous thread, so forgive me if this was brought
up.

I for one would be fine with just using --smtp-server and not adding an
--sendmail-command, and doing this by simply doing an exec() on whatever
the user specifies.

If it's an absolute path and an executable command, OK. If it's a
command name we find in $PATH, OK, or other valid shell whatever. You
can use $? to distinguish between a failed and nonexisting command.

If not exec() will return and we continue resolving it as a hostname/IP
address/whatever. We'll have a conflict if someone has a command in
their $PATH called gmail.com or whatever, but really. Who does that?

Maybe it's way too nasty. This design is also fine, just a suggestion.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1592,14 +1600,14 @@ sub send_message {
 		printf($dry_run ? __("Dry-Sent %s\n") : __("Sent %s\n"), $subject);
 	} else {
 		print($dry_run ? __("Dry-OK. Log says:\n") : __("OK. Log says:\n"));
-		if (!file_name_is_absolute($smtp_server)) {
+		if (defined $sendmail_command) {
+			print "Sendmail: $sendmail_command ".join(' ',@sendmail_parameters)."\n";
+		} else {
 			print "Server: $smtp_server\n";
 			print "MAIL FROM:<$raw_from>\n";
 			foreach my $entry (@recipients) {
 			    print "RCPT TO:<$entry>\n";
 			}
-		} else {
-			print "Sendmail: $smtp_server ".join(' ',@sendmail_parameters)."\n";
 		}
 		print $header, "\n";
 		if ($smtp) {
Minor nit: Let's just continue to use "if (!" here to keep the diff
minimal or split up such refactoring into another change...
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help