|
osdir.com mailing list archive |
|
Subject: [Bug 467] SPF checking doesn't fallback to HELO with null sender - msg#00057List: mail.exim.develYou are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=467 peter@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |peter@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Comment #1 from peter@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-07 15:15 ------- Created an attachment (id=66) --> (http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=66&action=view) Patch to fix 467 and partially 464 -- Configure bugmail: http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview[Bug 455] fakereject behaves differently than deny message------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=455 ph10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Comment #9 from ph10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-07 11:26 ------- I have committed a patch that splits up the fakedefer and fakereject responses in the same way that other "message" texts in ACLs are split. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- Next Message by Date: click to view message preview[Bug 467] SPF checking doesn't fallback to HELO with null sender------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=467 ------- Comment #2 from peter@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-07 15:19 ------- 3 separate bugs came to light here: 1) The original bug - no fallback to HELO checking on null senders 2) When bailing out of checking and simulating SPF_RESULT_PERMERR, the translation of the error code into spf_result was skipped 3) The spf_result for SPF_RESULT_PERMERR is not 'err_perm' as expected by the code, but 'Unknown (Permanent error)', which can't be tested for. The patch corrects 1) and 2), and partially addreses bug 464 - if used in the acl_smtp_helo acl, the spf= condition will check the sender_helo_name. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview[Bug 467] SPF checking doesn't fallback to HELO with null sender------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=467 ph10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ph10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Configure bugmail: http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview[Bug 467] SPF checking doesn't fallback to HELO with null sender------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=467 ------- Comment #2 from peter@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-07 15:19 ------- 3 separate bugs came to light here: 1) The original bug - no fallback to HELO checking on null senders 2) When bailing out of checking and simulating SPF_RESULT_PERMERR, the translation of the error code into spf_result was skipped 3) The spf_result for SPF_RESULT_PERMERR is not 'err_perm' as expected by the code, but 'Unknown (Permanent error)', which can't be tested for. The patch corrects 1) and 2), and partially addreses bug 464 - if used in the acl_smtp_helo acl, the spf= condition will check the sender_helo_name. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- Loading Comments...
|
|
