On 2020-07-28 06:02, Martijn van Duren wrote:
On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 05:37 -0400, Larkin Nickle wrote:
Doing a little more searching on "ORCPT :1:1" shows me the following
links:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mailing.postfix.users/a2wjRII3Q_Y
https://community.microfocus.com/t5/GroupWise-User-Discussions/550-5-7-1-Unable-to-relay-to-certain-provider/td-p/2302331?p=2287440
https://info-ims.arnold.narkive.com/GtKAJz28/off-topic-research-on-rcpt-to-s-orcpt-extension
All complaining about that postfix.
This looks more and more like a misfeature from groupwise. So unless
there is some solid evidence that this is actually allowed I'd tell
your colleague to either turn of this misfeature or change software.
Or my personal favourite: If I can't receive your mails because you
violate the protocol I can't handle any requests in those mails.
It doesn't actually seem like DSN is enabled as there's no "NOTIFY=" in
the SMTP command either (in the last link they said turning off DSN
server-side fixed things). GroupWise is a major email server software,
if this is actually the issue I wonder if it would be better to just
work around it (esp. since others seem to).
Just because it's major doesn't mean it does the correct thing, just
because others don't seem to trip over it doesn't mean it's wise to
deviate from the spec.
Personally I'm not inclined to change this check for (imho) the worst,
but I'm not the lead developer on this project. So if you want it
changed you can write a diff around the smtp_session.c code I pointed
to in my previous mail with a detailed explination on how this
improves the situation, how this header attribute is/can be used down
the line and how this may or may not negatively impact that downstream.
Even better would be if you can point to the part of the specifications
that allow for this behaviour.
It's quite a bit of work and it might still not be accepted. I'm
unlikely to commit it unless you can show me I'm wrong in my previous
assessment, but I won't object if you can show us it's not detrimental.
Hope this helps.
He got this reply from Micro Focus upon asking them about it:
```
I was able to find a defect that matched this issue back in 2009 for
GroupWise version 8.
The defect specifically mentions that we are following the RFC as directed:
The :1:1 is essential to GroupWise status tracking.
The numbers represent the host and user numbers for the creating a
GroupWise internal status message.
According to the RFC, the format of the ORCPT is <address type>;xtext
We use RFC822 for the address type and we use xtext to contain the
information that we need, which is
groupwise-<address>:<host number>:<user number>
xtext is defined (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3461) as any ASCII
characters between "!" and "~" excluding "+" and "="
If this were not the case, we would be seeing tons of undeliverables,
but we are not. GroupWise 18.2.1 was released on March 4th of this year
and this is the first case we have dealing with undeliverables because
of the RFC standard.
```
So according to them it should actually be okay and OpenSMTPD is wrong
here. (check 4. Additional parameters for RCPT and MAIL commands for
example)
