[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 577
From: Kevin Spicer
Date: 2005-05-27 03:35:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Problem with milter-ahead

Removal...........: milters-request@milter.info?subject=remove
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
--------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 07:34 +0100, Anthony Howe wrote:
> > I'm seeing an issue with milter-ahead 0.8.65...
> >
> > We have a number of mail accounts that have addresses beginning with
> +
> > (these are typically mail groups) ie, the format
> > +Mail_Group@mydomain.com
> 
> Plus sign is special in sendmail addresses. It denotes +details such
> as
> 
>         user+detail@example.com

Anthony, thanks for your quick and helpful response, I'd not come across
subaddressing in sendmail and as you can imagine I didn't have much
success searching for my problem when all I had to go on was a plus
sign!

I've just done a little reading, particularly of the cf README and
http://www.sendmail.org/virtual-hosting.html .  I respect the fact
that
this is your software and it is entirely up to you what features you do
or do not support, however I  hope you'll bear with me whilst I attempt
to make the case for supporting the mail format I describe.

You are absolutely correct that the + sign is special in sendmail
addresses (and other MTAs that support subaddressing) however the
sendmail web page above makes it clear that this format is for addresses
in class w...

"In general, +detail means that when sendmail gets an address like user
+detail@domain, then if domain is in class w (see step 7 below),
sendmail checks to see if user+detail can be resolved, then falls back
to just plain user if not."

However addresses containing a + appear to be perfectly valid on other
MTA's (I'm using MTA in its broadest sense, and including exchange!),
and so for milter-ahead to reject these addresses (which neither
sendmail nor the recieving host would) seems counter-intuitive to me.
Since the validity of addresses in class w would be checked anyway by
sendmail (and shouldn't appear in mailertable either) milter-ahead has
no role in relation to local recipients.  I'm therefore not clear as to
why milter-ahead worries about the user+detail format.  Surely just
passing the email address as received in the RCPT line would be
sufficient as the destination host would be responsible for parsing (or
not) the local part of the address?

Regards

Kevin



-- 
_________________________________________________________________

KMR Group, KMR Software and BMRB have moved offices.
Our new address is:

Ealing Gateway
26-30 Uxbridge Road
Ealing
London 
W5 2BP

t: 020 8433 4000
f: 020 8433 4001

All direct line numbers remain unchanged
_________________________________________________________________



BMRB 
http://www.bmrb.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
This message (and any attachment) is intended only for the 
recipient and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
material.  If you have received this in error, please contact the 
sender and delete this message immediately.  Disclosure, copying 
or other action taken in respect of this email or in 
reliance on it is prohibited.  BMRB Limited accepts no liability 
in relation to any personal emails, or content of any email which 
does not directly relate to our business.



Lists Index Date Thread Search