I reviewed this, however, people may use different symbols to show, like '-' is accepted and '+' as well. The former is more common. This could create a mess with usernames that have a '-' in them. On the discussion on how to support this, it should be handled the following way: Link aliases to appropriate mailboxes.
Dan
----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 07:18:34 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 213.214.98.40
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [DBMail 0000057]: direct mailforwarding with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-DCC: WEiAPG: mirrorlynx.com 1072; Body=1 Fuz1=5 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on mirrorlynx.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no
version=2.63
X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.0 (built Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:31:30 +0200)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mirrorlynx.com)
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
======================================================================
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000057
======================================================================
Reported By: maXXmaster
Assigned To: aaron
======================================================================
Project: DBMail
Bug ID: 57
Category: PIPE delivery (dbmail-smtp)
Reproducibility: N/A
Severity: feature
Priority: high
Status: feedback
======================================================================
Date Submitted: 23-Jul-04 23:37 CEST
Last Modified: 08-Aug-04 13:17 CEST
======================================================================
Summary: direct mailforwarding with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
it doesn't seem that there is a way to store "special" mails like spam to a
different folder than INBOX when pipeing the message to dbmail-smtp. i'm
not sure if it is an imap-standard, but many imapservers allow you to send
a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is there a way to realise that?
======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
danweber - 24-Jul-04 03:38 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes we need this feature added so we can start using tmda with exim too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 24-Jul-04 17:05 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a command line option to specify an alternate mailbox along with
the destination address:
dbmail -m mailbox {-t [headerfield] | -d [emailaddress]}
If there's a way to make this work with Exim, it would be much easier to
document such a method rather than adding new support for the
username+mailbox syntax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 25-Jul-04 20:40 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i actually wanted to use it with amavis-new which is able to append an
foldername after the mailadress (incase of spam or viruses).. i'll
probably have to find a way to make it work with the -m mailboxname
option,..
let's see ;o)
edited on: 25-Jul-04 20:40
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 25-Jul-04 20:44 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, keep us posted. Interfacing with other parts of the mail system is,
quite naturally, a high priority :-)
Is there a published standard advocating for this hack, btw? Some de facto
rule book that we can follow if it turns out to be necessary to support
this syntax?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 25-Jul-04 22:56 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
well, not really,.. at least i couldn't find one within the last hour. my
(probably) working solution is to use the following chain:
postfix (:25) -> amavis-new (:10024) -> postfix#2 (:10025) -> procmail (->
script which does the conversion from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the
dbmail-smtp syntax you mentioned) -> dbmail
maybe i can write more about the necessary configurations tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 26-Jul-04 11:52 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i tried some things and came up with quite a good solution.
i use a small (php)script insted of the dbmail-smtp program in postfix
(inside master.cf) to extract the +folder from the emailaddress and pipe
it to dbmail-smtp. the only problem is, that dbmail-smtp cannot add
messages to a special mailbox, if i want to forward them to an
emailaddress. it just works with direct usernames (user -u markus vs -d
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
so either i ask the dbmail-database which useralias i should use for
special mailaddresses (that is exactly what dbmail-smtp should actually
do), or some of you guys add a few lines to make dbmail-smtp work with
mailboxes AND emailaddresses or to make it work with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
any suggestions? =)
edited on: 26-Jul-04 11:52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 26-Jul-04 13:00 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a published standard advocating for this hack, btw?
> Some de facto rule book that we can follow if it turns out
> to be necessary to support this syntax?
yes, there is. i found an rfc which "specifies" the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
syntax.
it can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3598.txt
i hope that is enough information to the syntax ;o)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 26-Jul-04 16:15 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the RFC link, I'll look into it. Indicentally, there's no
difference between -u username and -d address. The address lookup checks
usernames first... I'll start a thread on dbmail-dev about whether or not
we should keep both options as synonyms, or make them different again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 26-Jul-04 16:49 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are these two options really the same? hmm, maybe in version 2.* but in
1.2.9 (which i am using) they are different. at least i get a message
telling me to use -u username and not -d address if i want to store
directly to a mailbox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 26-Jul-04 18:15 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct, they were merged at a fairly deep level in the new delivery
chain. My thinking was twofold (and in fact, this should probably go into
an FAQ or RATIONALE file someplace)...
- It seems odd to have to add an alias to your own username in order to
support domain-local delivery without expansion, as is common when you use
"mail" on the command line.
- It seems really odd to have to add an alias to your own username when
your username is a full email address, as is common for folks running
multiple separate email domains from a single server.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 26-Jul-04 18:22 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically, here's my take on this so far:
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a common and accepted format that we should
support.
It is possible that some people will not want to use such an expansion,
while many other would, and, therefore:
- we need another command line option to handle this syntax.
Because -u and -d have been merged at a very deep level in the delivery
chain, it would make sense then to use -d to support this syntax and -u to
not support this syntax. The changes can be made at a very high level,
merely by adding a check for anything bounded by "+" and "@", removing
that portion of the address and assigning it to be the mailbox
destination.
- as a significant UI mechanism, this would need to be added before 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 26-Jul-04 21:47 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sounds good to me ;o)
a small sidenote:
i couldn'n find a good howto about settingup
dbmail+amavis-new(+spamassassin+clamav)+postfix so if there are more
people interested in that, i could try writing one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 27-Jul-04 10:24 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the latest CVS and let me know if it is working as you would
expect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 27-Jul-04 10:28 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and I might mention that this is the 2.0 CVS. If you're running 1.2.x
you will have to use a script as a helper and you may be out of luck on
the mail folder thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 01-Aug-04 09:42 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so the mailfolder stuff will just work in 2.x ? =( as dbmail is working on
a small production-server i want(ed) to use the stable 1.2.x version. so
i'll probably have to use my helper-script ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ilja - 04-Aug-04 16:26 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, does it all work like it should? If so, we can close this bug :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 05-Aug-04 07:56 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just ran it through its paces, and it works as expected. Neat new feature!
Now if Mr. maXXmaster would like to write README.amavisnew...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 05-Aug-04 22:34 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it is possible to create unlimited folders by sending messages to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] that is not really good, in case of mailbombs.
wouldn't it be better to store mails in the inbox if the folder doesn't
exist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 06-Aug-04 01:29 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, and one that isn't handled with the little-m and big-M
options... medium-Mm for providing a mailbox in case the one specified
does not exist.
It may actually be a really big problem that someone could specify a
mailbox from outside of your mail system. This syntax is something that
DBMail needs to understand from upstream (amavis, exim) but which needs to
be filtered from the outside world (perhaps by exim or postfix before
initial delivery).
Creating mailboxes on the fly was a feature that I added to simply adding
users and to enable users to be authenticated from LDAP without requiring
additional steps to enable each user in DBMail. However, now we have a
situation where the mailbox can be specified by an external sender.
Probably a very bad thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ilja - 06-Aug-04 10:28 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't we change this easily?
We can still let the db_find_create_mailbox() function create the mailbox,
but only when its name is "INBOX".
The change to db_find_create_mailbox() is easily made. Just add a
if (strcmp(name, "INBOX") == 0)
to the function and set mailbox_idnr to 0 is it fails.
There are three places in the sources where db_find_create_mailbox() is
used.
One is in db.c, in db_insert_message(). This use does not have to be
changed, because the value of mailbox_idnr is checked later on.
There are two places in sort/sort.c where the function is used. These will
have to be changed.
Aaron, sort/sort.c is your code, do you want to take a shot at this?
Ilja
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 06-Aug-04 18:03 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a big fan of an INBOX-only solution; I'd much rather be able to
ensure that +mailbox addresses cannot arrive from across the network. The
question I have now is if there's a difference between:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Postfix -> Amavis -> DBMail ([EMAIL PROTECTED], into
box)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Postfix -> Amavis (+box) -> DBMail ([EMAIL PROTECTED],
into
box)
DBMail most likely would have no way to cleanly separate the two
situations, so either we have to limit what DBMail can do (INBOX only,
ugh) or make sure that somebody is disallowing incoming messages of this
format (either Postfix or Amavis, if there's a way to have them strip out
the +box detail).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 07-Aug-04 07:14 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i tried finding config-examples (at least for postix) to switch-off "plus
detail" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but couldn't find anything. maybe it'S just too
early, but i think it would be a good setting for the config-file!
.) to enable all +folder
.) just to allow storing to existing folders (otherwise INBOX)
.) or to disable it at all.
would that work for you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron - 08-Aug-04 06:59 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is pretty much an intractable problem right now. There only easy
solution is to find a way to trash the +folder part immediately from the
outside SMTP server.
The other three solutions are:
- comment out the code and put this off until later.
- provide a mechanism to specify a default mailbox to use in case the
provided one does not exist (the default mailbox would be created if not
found, to prevent the corner case of a nonexistant INBOX, for example).
- disable auto mailbox creation altogether, except a hardcoded INBOX.
A few months ago, I started to write code for the second situation,
apparently with a very good insight that we'd want auto mailbox creation
be option in some cases -- that code requires a number of deep changes.
I'm confident that they could be debugged within the coming 2.0rc8, but
I'd rather not have that pressure.
Disabling auto mailbox creation altogether isn't a very good option
because we do need it for LDAP users or perhaps if the user somehow
deletes their own INBOX folder entry. Hardcoding an INBOX exception
strikes me as quite ugly.
Even if we did disable this address syntax, someone who wants to work with
TMDA or Amavis-new would have to write a script that used the dbmail-smtp
-m "mailbox" option, which is vulnerable to exactly the same attack. So it
would be the mail admin hanging themself instead of DBMail doing it for
them.
So that leaves us with one good option and one crumby one:
- figure out how to filter this at the MTA.
- go for more new code.
Bummer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maXXmaster - 08-Aug-04 13:17 CEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it really seems to be a tricky problem. as a wrote before. i couldn't find
a way to tell postfix to strip-off the +folder part (still i believe there
is a way). nevertheless i think it is a good start to be able to work with
amavis the way you implemented it now. (as long as 1.2.9 is the officially
stable version it won't be a problem to leave it the way it is right now)
if there might be a better solution in rc9 i welcome it.
Bug History
Date Modified Username Field Change
======================================================================
23-Jul-04 23:37maXXmaster New Bug
24-Jul-04 03:38danweber Bugnote Added: 0000110
24-Jul-04 03:38danweber Priority normal => high
24-Jul-04 03:38danweber Status new => confirmed
24-Jul-04 17:05aaron Bugnote Added: 0000111
25-Jul-04 20:40maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000112
25-Jul-04 20:40maXXmaster Bugnote Edited: 0000112
25-Jul-04 20:44aaron Bugnote Added: 0000113
25-Jul-04 22:56maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000114
26-Jul-04 11:51maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000115
26-Jul-04 11:52maXXmaster Bugnote Edited: 0000115
26-Jul-04 13:00maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000116
26-Jul-04 16:15aaron Bugnote Added: 0000117
26-Jul-04 16:49maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000118
26-Jul-04 18:15aaron Bugnote Added: 0000119
26-Jul-04 18:22aaron Bugnote Added: 0000120
26-Jul-04 21:47maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000121
27-Jul-04 10:24aaron Bugnote Added: 0000122
27-Jul-04 10:28aaron Bugnote Added: 0000123
01-Aug-04 09:42maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000127
04-Aug-04 16:26ilja Bugnote Added: 0000138
05-Aug-04 07:56aaron Bugnote Added: 0000144
05-Aug-04 07:56aaron Assigned To => aaron
05-Aug-04 07:56aaron Resolution open => fixed
05-Aug-04 07:56aaron Status confirmed => resolved
05-Aug-04 16:00ilja Status resolved => closed
05-Aug-04 22:34maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000150
05-Aug-04 22:34maXXmaster Resolution fixed => reopened
05-Aug-04 22:34maXXmaster Status closed => feedback
06-Aug-04 01:29aaron Bugnote Added: 0000151
06-Aug-04 10:28ilja Bugnote Added: 0000152
06-Aug-04 10:29ilja Bug Monitored: ilja
06-Aug-04 18:03aaron Bugnote Added: 0000153
07-Aug-04 07:14maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000154
08-Aug-04 06:59aaron Bugnote Added: 0000155
08-Aug-04 13:17maXXmaster Bugnote Added: 0000156
======================================================================
----- End forwarded message -----
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
