[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-745?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12898607#action_12898607
]
Eric Charles commented on JAMES-745:
------------------------------------
for 3.0-M1, we could align JDBCVirtualUserTable to existing
XMLVirtualUserTable, with a * as wildcard.
This means that previous 2.3 deployments should upgrade and replace % with *
(of well in xml, of well in database).
This would be an additional action to be documented in the migration path.
If ok, JDBCVirtualUserTable.mapAddressInternal could be adapted to reflect
XMLVirtualUserTable.mapAddressInternal.
> XMLVirtualUserTable and JDBCVirtualUserTable not work symetric
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JAMES-745
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-745
> Project: JAMES Server
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.2.0, 2.3.0
> Reporter: Norman Maurer
> Assignee: Eric Charles
> Fix For: 3.0-M1
>
>
> from ml:
> Looking at the virtualusertable query I see that if I only add the rule
> user=bago
> domain=%
> [email protected]
> It will never alias any recipient: neither b...@someremotedomain nor
> b...@somelocaldomain.
> If I instead add another generic mapping referring to the domain like:
> user=nonexistinguser
> domain=somedomain
> target=nonexistingu...@somedomain
> (yes, this does not change anything, but I need to add it to make the
> previous work)
> Then a message to b...@somedomain will be rewritten to [email protected]
> This is the query:
> --
> SELECT VirtualUserTable.target_address
> FROM VirtualUserTable, VirtualUserTable as VUTDomains
> WHERE
> (VirtualUserTable.user like ? OR VirtualUserTable.user like '\%')
> AND
> (VirtualUserTable.domain like ? OR
> (VirtualUserTable.domain like '\%' AND VUTDomains.domain like ?))
> ORDER BY
> concat(VirtualUserTable.user,'@',VirtualUserTable.domain) desc
> LIMIT 1
> ---
> And the key/guilty part is the self-join and the "AND VUTDomains.domain like
> ?"
> This mean that domain=% will match any domain already used in another rule.
> This is not documented anywhere and I also think this is not an intended
> behaviour.
> Was this hack used to try to alias only local domains?
> Should we change it to consider % valid for any local domain (specified in
> servernames) even if not used in other mapping rules and document it this way?
> Do we need to introduce a new wildcard to specify ANY domain (even the non
> local)?
> On the other side the XMLVirtualUserTable seems to have not such behaviour
> and to always rewrite any domain, even remote one or domains not used in
> other mapping rules.
> So what is the intended behaviour? I think that is really bad that XML and
> JDBC behave differently wrt this issue.
> My preference is:
> 1) use the XML behaviour by default when using %
> 2) optionally introduce later a new wildcart to match only local domains
> (this can be already achieved by using HostIsLocal matcher for the virtual
> users table.
> This means: remove the self join and the where condition on VUTDomains from
> JDBCVirtualUserTable.
> WDYT?
> Stefano
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
