Re: [regext] How to handle Domain Info Command with empty authinfo/pw tag in command?

"Patrick Mevzek" <> Fri, 20 December 2019 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0181D120129 for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:06:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=ZMFdnuul; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=eyIe/sML
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysqCV3yckyEg for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B97881200FB for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE007F6 for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:06:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:06:30 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=Yk0Fdurg7TTV7gGn/X+3hYmd3gT7jq5 evaJVHTsXw58=; b=ZMFdnuul7QUMqOdH23KZ3zcCBRbyDGzr28eX9Td/Nmnmp+6 YGuAVZt12zXgCqJUSxeyGJNrDlRpitSRaWWXrSNDCZ85FsqeVZ0W4iEjOXPTQ0Mg v1QA2hskWmx3Gzzj5VQGfPczp+HeyWy4FOEcflswXg1F0Bvux3OfL2qEZEGOcJ1r COE4c0YVNqAkUKAkJAI9AZsg/DVICNFpExwpmiKF0hx5aPMIHHWs16seEjmlnO+7 SvbZAXiO5wzvhS9M6G3EG/ACS2hLcZMNUqbNrXG5ENs8CXnP2d2ififYO4hNaqox EQd5XZo2lq0WhJEPjDmXT6hruMSxE/xOBMo1AyQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Yk0Fdu rg7TTV7gGn/X+3hYmd3gT7jq5evaJVHTsXw58=; b=eyIe/sMLlrHRIFXxswk4cC kIS2/i41wqaXaIpofcG+fm3a85mVtCAOZBEJ+YskAihFRbRInXBipP8Pngy2HaQG V7nOjZGL4uECJW4i083UNUSLQ3weVgLiJ5EpekOOEK4IkfijvSiT9tWmneI6GWaY 09djmgTiywV32FbCEpEE4xbjoPoJY+LcJ6mzsWYtxejxJHJaVWi50/AsqHUceLkH 4r5FXGWShoK3LsaBKBLyBur82CL9po5gmiirlQD5vmqHrwbKHqfxcEhMCN3QL39q mT5jDVEnBrQIahUXoQrjINli1DwehwtKeJma3aFhUBcvflmJpPUQQjaSj5lMCang ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:FY_8XYqG-xvtPUCkCnlYvxfiwy7dSLR8F7LTGVKc6vLCJdO9pVXZlOKzhGQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdduvddguddvgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesth dtredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfrrghtrhhitghkucfovghviigvkhdfuceophhmsegu ohhtrghnuggtohdrtghomheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehrvggrshhonhdrphifnecurfgrrh grmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpmhesughothgrnhgutghordgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:FY_8XU-I7mzTAKcbQelr-D6XC2_UKnsxuMtMTlEcRq6oPz4OBiOBOg> <xmx:FY_8XZ5aE_HgVI54gejXHJ0Nlkc2wYnXCncUpr4arcjEf5YW2heToA> <xmx:FY_8XegBB45aMML0NLFgE_8YuPYc-dMKK6QQagZIetiZ_3N46R71Jg> <xmx:FY_8XauGprhelsvxKWa7TJUkX5fff-SGv4_5JYLtUN1S_uJMwPCU4Q>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 392DCC200A4; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:06:29 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-694-gd5bab98-fmstable-20191218v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:06:06 -0500
From: "Patrick Mevzek" <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] =?utf-8?q?How_to_handle_Domain_Info_Command_with_empty_?= =?utf-8?q?authinfo/pw_tag_in_command=3F?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:06:34 -0000

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, at 03:50, Martin Casanova wrote:
> I agree that hashing an empty String to match a not set authinfo is not 
> the way to go. We are using [null] values in the db for a not set 
> authinfo field. However I think you could argue that semantically and 
> empty XML tag is somewhat similar to a not filled db field being [null] 

I strongly disagree.
It is the same thing as the difference in an RDBMS when you store "" (the empty string)
or NULL (the undefined value). Those are two different things, and for good reason.

<pw/> or <pw></pw> means an empty password, the empty string.
No XML pw node means an undefined password, as the data is just not there, so unknown.

Like said in other threads, this all shows to me that efforts should be put
into finding now new ways to operate, without domain passwords as they became
useless, instead of trying to fix with various warts the current situation.

  Patrick Mevzek