On 2009-02-26, at 0708, Robert Schulze wrote:
could it be, that vpopmail with "qmail-ext" compile option is the enemy here? I looked at the code from vdelivermail.c and it seems that qmail-ext disables processing of ".qmail" when there is a dash in the recip-address, instead it searches for ".qmail-<ext>" and falls back to ".qmail-default".
the problem is this... assuming the email address is "one-two-three-f...@domain.xyz ".
right now, vdelivermail scans the string from left to right, looking for "-" characters. when it finds one, it splits the name and that's the end of the process. so in this example, it treats "one" as the mailbox name, and "two-three-four" as the extension.
what it SHOULD do is this: scan from right to left, and when it finds one, check the portion to the left to see if it's a valid mailbox name. if so, it's done, otherwise keep going. so in this example, it should:
(1) check "one-two-three-four" to see if that's a valid mailbox. if so, there is no extension.
(2) check "one-two-three" to see if that's a valid mailbox. if so, "four" is the extension.
(3) check "one-two" to see if that's a valid mailbox. if so, "three- four" is the extension.
(4) check "one" to see if that's a valid mailbox. if so, "two-three- four" is the extension.
(5) fall back to the catchall directions.i'm looking at vdelivermail.c from vpopmail-5.4.26d.tar.gz, the comment on lines 219-222 basically say the same thing i've explained above.
still looking at the code, i'm seeing a few things which... to be diplomatic, let's just say i would have done them a little bit differently. for example, the comment on line 64 isn't very clear- it should probably say "TheUser with '-' and extension (if any) removed", and i probably would have named the variable "TheMailbox" instead of "TheUserExt". the name "TheUserExt" makes me think that's the version WITH the extension, rather than the version WITHOUT it. however, this is mostly a cosmetic issue for people who work with the code.
more importantly, i also don't think get_arguments() is the right place to parse for "-" in the address to begin with... i think the whole block from lines 218-237 could be removed, and the scanning done in main(), using something like this as a replacement for the existing block at line 139-156.
/* try to get the user from vpopmail database */
vpw = vauth_getpw ( TheUser , TheDomain ) ;
#ifdef QMAIL_EXT
/* scan for a possible extension */
if ( ! vpw )
{
/* start at the end of the string */
int i = 0 ;
while ( TheUser[i] ) { i++ ; }
/* work backwards */
while ( --i )
{
if ( '-' == TheUser[i] )
{
/* split here and check the left part */
TheUser[i] = 0 ;
vpw = vauth_getpw ( TheUser , TheDomain ) ;
/* if it IS a valid mailbox name... */
if ( vpw )
{
/* remember right side as TheExt */
strncpy ( TheExt , &(TheUser[i+1]) , AUTH_SIZE ) ;
/* restore the original name */
TheUser[i] = '-' ;
/* store first "i" chars of original name in
TheUserExt */
strncpy ( TheUserExt , TheUser , i ) ;
TheUserExt[i] = 0 ;
/* stop scanning */
break ;
}
/* not a valid mailbox name, restore the original
value */
TheUser[i] = '-' ;
}
}
}
#endif
if ( vpw )
checkuser() ;
else
usernotfound() ;
i haven't compiled or tested this, but the basic idea seems sound...
and as long as this code runs before anything else tries to use
TheUserExt or TheExt (i haven't walked the entire program but i'm
pretty sure it does) the change shouldn't affect any other parts of
the code at all, other than accurately detecting where the mailbox
name ends and the extension begins.
i see tom is on this list as well- any comments? am i missing something stupid? should we move this discussion to the vpopmail (or vpopmail-devel) list?
---------------------------------------------------------------- | John M. Simpson --- KG4ZOW --- Programmer At Large | | http://www.jms1.net/ <j...@jms1.net> | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 | ----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
!DSPAM:49a86daa32688907320734!
