On Fri, 2022-01-28 at 00:09 +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote: > On Mon, 2022-01-24 at 16:20 +0100, Tim van der Molen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Martijn van Duren (2022-01-23 20:13 +0100): > > > > From: r...@relayclient.example.com (Cron Daemon) > > > > > > According to RFC5322 section 3.4[0] this is not a valid e-mail format. > > > > Just to point out this actually is valid. Text in parentheses is a > > comment. See RFC 5322 section 3.2.2. Also this quote from section 3.4 > > which describes the format used above: > > > > Note: Some legacy implementations used the simple form where the > > addr-spec appears without the angle brackets, but included the > > name of the recipient in parentheses as a comment following the > > addr-spec. Since the meaning of the information in a comment is > > unspecified, implementations SHOULD use the full name-addr form of > > the mailbox, instead of the legacy form, to specify the display > > name associated with a mailbox. Also, because some legacy > > implementations interpret the comment, comments generally SHOULD > > NOT be used in address fields to avoid confusing such > > implementations. > > > > Best, > > Tim > > Thanks for pointing this one out, it made me take a closer look at the > spec. So when I originally responded I was only thinking in terms of > what characters are used in a domain name, but the " (Cron Daemon)" part > is not to be interpreted as domain characters, but a CFWS (or comment > folding whitespace). This means that it should not be returned by > osmtpd_mheader_from_domain() as part of the domain. So it is valid > syntax, but I shouldn't have returned it when comparing against the > known domain list. Similarly there were also a couple of FWS that I > could ignore. > > As for Paul's remark "SHOULD NOT" when it comes to this syntax: It's > part of the current syntax (e.g. not obsolete), so I don't see any > reason not to. Sorry for the confusion. > > I have the following changes lined up in my repo[0]: > - Fix a couple of memory leaks in error paths (pointed out by > Peter) > - Add support for -D file, where file contains one domain per line. All > other rules from -d apply. (requested by Mischa and Renaud) > - Fix FWS and CFWS issues when parsing a domain (pointed out by > Paul/Tim) > > If people could help me test the latest code (or even check the diffs > of revision 75-HEAD) that would help prepare for a new release. > > martijn@ > > [0] http://imperialat.at/dev/filter-dkimsign/
Did anyone test this yet? I would like to have other people test this before creating a new release.
