Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-19 Thread Jasen Betts
On 2017-01-18, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > > --===1145591294== > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s89yJNDe6fM6BJKb" > Content-Disposition: inline > > > --s89yJNDe6fM6BJKb > Content-Type:

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-18 Thread Jeremy Harris
On 18/01/17 21:50, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > Evgeniy Berdnikov (Mi 18 Jan 2017 21:56:49 CET): > … >>> - I'll start with: you don't want it at RCPT or earlier >>> because that will impact sender-verify callbacks. >> >> Exactly. Session with "MAIL FROM: <>" may be a sender

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-18 Thread Jeremy Harris
On 18/01/17 20:56, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote: >> And you'd prefer before all the data is transmitted >> because that's a waste of bits and cpu. > > Right. > >> Any more? >> >> What should be preferred practice >> when CHUNKING is used? > > With BDAT syntax we have to mix "pre-data"

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-18 Thread Heiko Schlittermann
Evgeniy Berdnikov (Mi 18 Jan 2017 21:56:49 CET): … > > - I'll start with: you don't want it at RCPT or earlier > > because that will impact sender-verify callbacks. > > Exactly. Session with "MAIL FROM: <>" may be a sender verification > callback, so in this case we want

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-18 Thread Evgeniy Berdnikov
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:32:44PM +, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 18/01/17 14:50, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:07:01PM +0200, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote: > >>> From: Heiko Schlittermann > >> > >>> Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL? ... > >

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-18 Thread Heiko Schlittermann
l...@lena.kiev.ua (Mi 18 Jan 2017 15:07:01 CET): > > From: Heiko Schlittermann > > > Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL? > Greylisting of all messages to postmaster and abuse. Why can't you do this in RCPT on a per rcpt base? -- Heiko

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-18 Thread Jeremy Harris
On 18/01/17 14:50, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:07:01PM +0200, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote: >>> From: Heiko Schlittermann >> >>> Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL? >> >> Greylisting of all messages to postmaster and abuse. > > Greylisting of

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-18 Thread Evgeniy Berdnikov
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:07:01PM +0200, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote: > > From: Heiko Schlittermann > > > Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL? > > Greylisting of all messages to postmaster and abuse. Greylisting of messages from <> should be done on this stage.

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-18 Thread Lena
> From: Heiko Schlittermann > Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL? Greylisting of all messages to postmaster and abuse. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-17 Thread Heiko Schlittermann
Jasen Betts (Mi 18 Jan 2017 05:06:38 CET): .. > # run predata acl if haven't already. (eg: bdat) > require > acl = ${if!bool{$acl_m_need_predata_acl}{accept}{my_predata_acl}} > # "!bool" above because spaces break it > > thus all my pre-data variables

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-17 Thread Jasen Betts
On 2017-01-17, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 17/01/17 07:17, Jasen Betts wrote: >> Is there a way to detect that chunking was used in the DATA acl? > > Look for "bdat", case-independently, in $smtp_command. Actually I really want to know if my pre-data ACL has been missed, so I'll

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-17 Thread Jeremy Harris
On 17/01/17 07:17, Jasen Betts wrote: > Is there a way to detect that chunking was used in the DATA acl? Look for "bdat", case-independently, in $smtp_command. -- Cheers, Jeremy -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-16 Thread Jasen Betts
On 2017-01-17, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 16/01/17 21:57, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote: >> In Exim 4.88 documentation: > > It's in the main docs. The NewStuff entry only gives > the bare-bones notification that the new feature has > been introduced; if you are interested you are

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-16 Thread Jeremy Harris
On 16/01/17 21:57, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote: > In Exim 4.88 documentation: > >> If CHUNKING was advertised and a BDAT command sequence is received, the >> acl_smtp_predata ACL is not run. > > Unexpected. Why? > CHUNKING is advertised by default, > for example Gmail issues BDAT commands. To

Re: [exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-16 Thread Heiko Schlittermann
l...@lena.kiev.ua (Mo 16 Jan 2017 22:57:19 CET): > In Exim 4.88 documentation: > > > If CHUNKING was advertised and a BDAT command sequence is received, the > > acl_smtp_predata ACL is not run. > > Unexpected. Why? > CHUNKING is advertised by default, > for example Gmail

[exim] gotcha: chunking and predata

2017-01-16 Thread Lena
In Exim 4.88 documentation: > If CHUNKING was advertised and a BDAT command sequence is received, the > acl_smtp_predata ACL is not run. Unexpected. Why? CHUNKING is advertised by default, for example Gmail issues BDAT commands. I think this at least deserves a mention in NewStuff. -- ## List