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.