Re: Problems with header checks
On Fr, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:31:05 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: But in that case probably LDA is the best place to do such change. Some time ago I was doing something similar via procmail. I found a great program for procmail: https://fex.belwue.de/fstools/#aw2re It fixes the subject and can remove ML information from the subject as well. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- |If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.|
Re: Problems with header checks
Stephan Seitz:
> On Fr, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:31:05 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> >But in that case probably LDA is the best place to do such change. Some
> >time ago I was doing something similar via procmail.
>
> Yes, I could do the same with procmail. But procmail will probably like
> postfix use the encoded subject, so I don?t know how to handle subjects
> like =?UTF-8?Q?Aw=3A_Weinprobe_gut_=C3=BCberstanden=3F?=
In the header_checks file:
/^(Subject:\s*=\?UTF-8\?Q\?)Aw([:=].+)/ REPLACE ${1}Re${2}
Or use some pattern that also captures strings other than UTF-8?Q.
I am lazy.
Wietse
Re: Problems with header checks
On Fr, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:31:05 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: But in that case probably LDA is the best place to do such change. Some time ago I was doing something similar via procmail. Yes, I could do the same with procmail. But procmail will probably like postfix use the encoded subject, so I don’t know how to handle subjects like =?UTF-8?Q?Aw=3A_Weinprobe_gut_=C3=BCberstanden=3F?= Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- |If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.|
Re: Problems with header checks
On 11/8/19 6:31 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > If you do it on incoming mail only, and after DKIM signature has already > been verified, then I think there's no problem. Am I right? Not always, because some people use tools that verify the signature later on, such as this one: https://github.com/lieser/dkim_verifier -- Robert L Mathews
Re: Problems with header checks
Dnia 8.11.2019 o godz. 15:23:52 Stephan Seitz pisze: > > But the warning about breaking DKIM signatures if I change the > subject line is of course a valid one. If you do it on incoming mail only, and after DKIM signature has already been verified, then I think there's no problem. Am I right? But in that case probably LDA is the best place to do such change. Some time ago I was doing something similar via procmail. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Re: Problems with header checks
On Fr, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:11:34 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: If I understand the OP correctly, he is trying to solve the problem of e-mail clients using other prefixes instead of "Re:" for replies (for example "AW:" or "Odp:" - these are among a few I encountered myself). When you exchange emails back and forth, this usually leads to chain of prefixes like "Re: Odp: Re: Odp: ..." at the beginning of the subject line. He is trying to replace all these strings by a proper "Re:". Exactly that’s my problem. Sorry, if I wasn’t clear enough. But the warning about breaking DKIM signatures if I change the subject line is of course a valid one. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- |If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.|
Re: Problems with header checks
Dnia 8.11.2019 o godz. 14:27:18 Christian Kivalo pisze: > > I don't think that postfix is the right tool for this job, on the other > hand I don't really see the problem you're trying to solve. If I understand the OP correctly, he is trying to solve the problem of e-mail clients using other prefixes instead of "Re:" for replies (for example "AW:" or "Odp:" - these are among a few I encountered myself). When you exchange emails back and forth, this usually leads to chain of prefixes like "Re: Odp: Re: Odp: ..." at the beginning of the subject line. He is trying to replace all these strings by a proper "Re:". -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Re: Problems with header checks
On November 8, 2019 1:53:13 PM GMT+01:00, Stephan Seitz wrote: >On Fr, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:44:53 +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote: >>Has anyone an idea how I can debug this further? Or why it is only >>sometimes working? > >I think I’ve found the problem. It happens if the subject has non-ASCII > >characters to the line looks like: > >=?UTF-8?Q?Aw=3A_Weinprobe_gut_=C3=BCberstanden=3F?= > >Has anyone an idea how can I change the regex so that it works with >encoded subject lines? Or can I tell postfix to decode the line, then >employ the regex und encode the line again? For such encoded content you need to match the encoded form. See http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html I don't think that postfix is the right tool for this job, on the other hand I don't really see the problem you're trying to solve. Be careful not to break dkim signatures when modifying headers. Subject is a signed header in most cases. >Shade and sweet water! > > Stephan -- Christian Kivalo
Re: Problems with header checks
On Fr, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:44:53 +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote: Has anyone an idea how I can debug this further? Or why it is only sometimes working? I think I’ve found the problem. It happens if the subject has non-ASCII characters to the line looks like: =?UTF-8?Q?Aw=3A_Weinprobe_gut_=C3=BCberstanden=3F?= Has anyone an idea how can I change the regex so that it works with encoded subject lines? Or can I tell postfix to decode the line, then employ the regex und encode the line again? Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- |If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.|
Problems with header checks
Hi! I’m using Debian 10 with postfix 3.4.5. Trying to solve the problem with non-Re subjects I have found a regex for header checks. So I have a „/etc/postfix/header_check.pcre” with: /eSubject:\s*((RE|AW|Aw|Antw|Antwort|RES|SV):\s*)+(.*)$/ REPLACE Subject: Re: $3 In main.cf: header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_check.pcre Now I have noticed that this isn’t always working. Postfix logs if the rule is getting used. I have a friend who is using the GMX webinterface which is using AW: instead of Re:. I can see in the mail logs that sometimes the AW gets replaced with Re and sometimes it stays. The mail logs are in both cases the same (client=mout.gmx.net[212.227.15.15]), besides the fact that if it works I have an additional log line (replace: header Subject:…). Has anyone an idea how I can debug this further? Or why it is only sometimes working? Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- |If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.|
