[mlmmj] Candidate for an 1.4.0.a1

Hello everyone,

A 1.5 years ago, I migrated FreeBSD's mailing list to mlmmj. So far so good we
are very happy with it.

Since that date I have been working on modernizing mlmmj codebase, integrate our
patches etc. While the work is clearly not done, I think it is advanced enough
for it to be shared.

Disclaimer: this is a very early alpha, mostly tested under FreeBSD! While I tried
(and intend) to keep using only portable things, their maybe issues, the main goal
is to open the gate to contributors, testers and open discussions.

https://codeberg.org/mlmmj/mlmmj/releases

The working has been ongoing here: https://codeberg.org/mlmmj/mlmmj

The changelog is the following:
 * Add a test suite
 * Modernize code (dprintf, posix_spawn, asprintf, getline, daemon, ...)
 * Supporting passing email to a mta over ipv6
 * Fix relaying in IPV6-only systems
 * Fix decode quoted printable subject
 * Fix parsing RFC1891
 * Fix a crash if no owner has been defined
 * Validate ranges of all integers conversion
 * New 'nobounceprobe' tunable for debugging purpose
 * New 'send' tunable to allow email passthrough
 * Add support for 'X-Original-From'
 * Reduce subscription confirmation address length to fit RFC 5321
 * Use arc4random is available
 * Reduce memory manipulation
 * When unsubscribing bouncers, keep the bounce file if something went
 * wrong and report in syslog what went wrong
 * Remove the -b option from mlmmj-unsub, it is not used anymore
 * simplify the locking mechanism

My plans before a full 1.4.0:
 * Remove the php part
 * Merge interesting parts of mlmmj-receive-strip into mlmmj-receive

Note that one thing I didn't do is merge the mungefrom patches. So far I consider
mailing list should not be altering parts of the email that are part of the dkim
signatures aka:
- Should not modify the subject
- Should not strip any part of the emial
- Should not add a footer

If so, emails going through a mailing list respects dkim/dmarc expectations.
Note that I don't have strong feelings about this, so I can be convince to merge
those patches.

Open question:
- should this still be mlmmj? (aka the continuation of the project?) if most do
  not like the approach, I will of course fork and rename, otherwise I will be
  happy to make it a continuation of the project.

Best regards,
Bapt