On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 02:58:27AM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> did you try "tainted" mode? i would prefer it.
>
> and do "use strict;" - it forces you to write clean script which tend to
> have less errors *g*
Eh; it's a one of script, that's so close to being "strict" that it hurts.
But we're talking semantics now. <grin>
As far as taint mode goes, see below..
> But i have to state clearly that i'd prefer some shell command without the
> dangerous variable $address in it...
>
> But i have no qmail-inject documentation ready, and my DSL link is currently
> down (damn T-Online... i think 7th downtime in 4 days... well, it's no
> bussiness line but my home Internet Connection. if it'd be business...)
Yeah.. there really is no more direct way to get something into the queue than
to inject it directly via qmail-queue; but it must have full and correct
header information, and do some interesting things with file descriptors.
I've tried to do this in perl before; couldn't figure it out and gave up. :)
> The cited RE is what i would have written; but this is some lightly
> different case; and i do know that this RE does not allow all possible
> rfc822 conformant adresses.
> p.e. "'@<>"@domain.tld is a correct address, i believe.
> (it's [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is correct)
Again, I'm not sure how neccessary this is, as far as catching valid mail
addresses. If it's being passed the address by qmail, it's allready getting a
valid RFC822 address component. It can't hurt anything, of course, but as you
say it's not the easiest thing in the world to do.
Adam
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (http://sysadminsith.org)
Evil Lord of the Sysadmin Sith Darth Rmdashrf
