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