Sorry, some unnecessary whitespace change was part of the attached
patch. Find attached a cleaned up version of the patch (functionally the
same).
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Tassilo Philipp wrote:
After a direct exchange with Omar Polo about the ORCPT patch, find
attached a
After a direct exchange with Omar Polo about the ORCPT patch, find
attached a revised version of it. The changes compared to Tim's last
patch are, just fyi:
1) valid_xtext() has been modified to avoid potential problems with sign
extensions when using the ctype is*() functions. I also
Sorry for another bump of this patch: can it be merged?
I know the groupwise example in this thread is rare and doesn't affect a
lot of smtpd users, but without it, it's unfortunately a bit of a
blocker for some people. We personally apply this patch to our opensmtpd
builds, but for others
Op 20-07-2023 om 09:58 schreef Tassilo Philipp:
Sorry to shamelessly "bump" this, but any way to get this integrated
into upstream, eventually?
We used the original patch from Frank Scholl and then this improved one
in production now for like a year, now, and didn't experience issues. In
our
Sorry to shamelessly "bump" this, but any way to get this integrated
into upstream, eventually?
We used the original patch from Frank Scholl and then this improved one
in production now for like a year, now, and didn't experience issues. In
our case it is specifically needed for a client that
I have refined and more thoroughly tested a previous patch that relaxes
the ORCPT address check.
Over the years mail has been rejected by senders that use RCPT TO
commands like:
RCPT TO: ORCPT=rfc822;groupwise-i...@example.com:0:0 or
RCPT TO: ORCPT=rfc822;groupwise-i...@example.com:0:0
