On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:56:08PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> However, 5321 also makes it very clear that SMTP-conformant
> servers are not supposed to be tampering with message payloads
> (everything that follows the DATA command up to the "." CRLF,
> often called "content", but I'm trying to
--On Thursday, January 16, 2020 16:40 -0500 Viktor Dukhovni via
Exim-users wrote:
> We'll have to disagree on this, because given non-conformant
> (with RFC5322 Section 2.1.1) input we're free to do whatever
> is reasonably pragmatic and yields a conformant message for
> delivery to the next h
We'll have to disagree on this, because given non-conformant
(with RFC5322 Section 2.1.1) input we're free to do whatever
is reasonably pragmatic and yields a conformant message for
delivery to the next hop. Perhaps not surprisingly, users
preferred delivery over bounces.
> On Jan 16, 2020, at 4:
Of course, Postfix is out of conformance with the standard and,
maybe more important, breaking any signatures over the message
body text, by doing this. Basically you can't win.
And that requirement is in the standard, not only because of the
historical reason of some implementations needing to a
> On Jan 16, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users
> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of anything that Exim can do to modify the message as
>> it is routed through
>
> Exim can't; it's a policy decision in what it regards it's job
> as being. That covers things like not converting from 8-
On 16/01/2020 17:40, Paul Tansom via Exim-users wrote:
> Does anyone know of anything that Exim can do to modify the message as
> it is routed through
Exim can't; it's a policy decision in what it regards it's job
as being. That covers things like not converting from 8-bit-dirty
to uuencoded, and
On 16/01/2020 17:42, Ian Zimmerman via Exim-users wrote:
> Looking at this, I see there is no longer a way to disable the
> optimization completely at compile-time (ie. -DTAINT_CHECK_SLOW). May I
> respectfully request that it be added back?
You can ask, but a justification would help!
--
Cheers
I've sorted out the specific Exim configuration changes for this, but it
hasn't completely sorted out the problem, so in the hope (all be it
small) that there is something else I can do with Exim to help, or given
that this is likely a place where people will be familiar with the issue
I thought I'
On 2020-01-16 16:00, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> I'm going for the alternate method of checking at runtime.
> See 36eb5d3d77.
Looking at this, I see there is no longer a way to disable the
optimization completely at compile-time (ie. -DTAINT_CHECK_SLOW). May I
respectfully request that it be added ba
On 16/01/2020 15:33, Andreas Metzler via Exim-users wrote:
> Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
>> On 13/01/2020 14:02, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
>>> debian package exim4-daemon-heavy_4.93-5_i386.
>
>> ooh - 32-bit? I wonder if the address-space layout is
>> different enough to
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 13/01/2020 14:02, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
>> debian package exim4-daemon-heavy_4.93-5_i386.
> ooh - 32-bit? I wonder if the address-space layout is
> different enough to invalidate the assumptions made by
> the Linux makefiles, for taint
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:05:47AM +, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 16/01/2020 10:30, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
> > Maybe some variation of this approach have chances to survive, say,
> > special pools with "untainted" strings and special functions to put
> > a strin
On 16/01/2020 10:30, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
> However, the assumption that malloc() and its derivative functions use
> only sbrk(2) is too optimistic. :-) And it is definitely wrong for
> glibc-based implementations, including Linux, where "man malloc" says:
>
>Normally, ma
Hello.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:50:59PM +, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 13/01/2020 18:46, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
> > Surprised that tainting mechanizm requires some knowledge about
> > address space mapping or RTL internals. I'd expect "tainting" to be
> >
14 matches
Mail list logo
