On ons 5 feb 2014 16:40:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:01:15AM +0100, Patrik B?t wrote:
>
>> Maybe check that SASL give a respons, and if not just tmp fail it. or
>> someother check.
>
> The proposed patch is incorrect. Please reply on-list only.
>
>> --- ../../../postfix-2.9.6/src/smtpd/smtpd_sasl_glue.c 2011-12-18
>> 19:03:44.000000000 +0100
>> +++ smtpd_sasl_glue.c 2014-02-05 09:59:29.893752433 +0100
>> @@ -316,8 +316,13 @@
>> state->namaddr, sasl_method,
>> STR(state->sasl_reply));
>> /* RFC 4954 Section 6. */
>> - smtpd_chat_reply(state, "535 5.7.8 Error: authentication failed: %s",
>> - STR(state->sasl_reply));
>> + if (state->sasl_reply != NULL) {
>> + smtpd_chat_reply(state, "535 5.7.8 Error: authentication
>> failed: %s",
>> + STR(state->sasl_reply));
>> + }
>> + else {
>> + smtpd_chat_reply(state, "454 4.7.0 Temporary authentication
>> failure");
>> + }
>> return (-1);
>> }
>> /* RFC 4954 Section 6. */
>
>Sorry for the "reply all" action, Im just so used to do it. About the patch, i will look someday more into this SASL, so for now just ignore the patch!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
