Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
> 1. The 'domain address' feature (discussed on tmda-users a couple of
> weeks ago).
>
> Assigned to: Ed Blackman
I was cleaning up the patch for submission when I thought of a
different implementation. Currently the domain address implementation
is separate from the sender address code, though it's mostly very
similar. It also requires a new argument to tmda-address, a new
subclass of Address, new methods in Cookie, etc.
What I realized is that sender address code has a completely useless
(I think) behavior that I could change slightly to make useful,
implementing domain addresses in the process. Currently, if you run
"tmda-address -s example.com", it will happily give you an address
that is completely useless, since the sender address will never be a
bare "example.com".
My current domain address implementation leaves that useless behavior
in place, and adds a bunch of new, but mostly duplicated from
'sender', code to implement domain addresses. I could submit that,
OR, I could simply change the 'sender' HMAC matching logic to use the
same sort of fallback algorithm I use for domain addresses: if the
hmac generated from the full sender address doesn't match the one on
the message, strip 'local@' from the sender address and try again. If
it still doesn't match, strip the most qualified domain part (eg,
'foo.example.com' -> 'example.com') and try again, until there's
either a match or nothing left to test.
An illustration of how that would work:
tmda-address args sender allowed in?
----------------- ------ ----------
-s [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] no
-s foo.example.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] no
-s example.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] no
-s com [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] no
Thoughts? Comments? Unless people don't like my alternate design, or
there's a problem with it I don't see, that's what I'm going to
submit: it's a lot less new code, and I don't think there are
backwards-compatibility issues, since I'm pretty sure it was useless
behavior before.
Ed
_________________________________________________
tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
