Envelope tests on null or illegal MAIL FROM (non)addresses
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Wed, 14 June 2006 15:17 UTC
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k5EFH58P094830; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:17:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id k5EFH5VQ094829; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:17:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (206.117.180.234.brandx.net [206.117.180.234] (may be forged)) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k5EFH4hl094820 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:17:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01M3LWTZDT80007K4A@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1150298222; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version; b=YAr3bJZZUXJtqMpvXP55gB69H7NLcp/SJXBdlw iGMl3mML5Ie2rrcRoxZRC0Dzv7mY5rKqUc4pNI+2c/iA21dg==
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01M3LTAVESKW00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Message-id: <01M3LWTYKQV000007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:03:55 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Envelope tests on null or illegal MAIL FROM (non)addresses
MIME-version: 1.0
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
I think the base specification could use a little clarification about how this is supposed to be handled. The main issue is that the envelope test deals with data in a structured way: THe :domain and :localpart tests operate on parts of an address and hence require parsing, and even :all is required to discard source route information, which also requires parsing. People definitely want to be able to write things like: if envelope :is :all "from" "" {empty envelope from, handle as report} But what should envelope :is: :domain "from" "" do? And if the MAIL FROM address is syntactically invalid, what should happen? FWIW, I'd be in favor of having a null MAIL FORM result in an empty string being tested regardless of which ADDRESS-PART is specified. As for invalid MAIL FROM values, I'm inclined to say that :all should test against the literal string inside the <>s and :domain and :localpart should test against the empty string. This way you can test for specific bogons and handle them accordingly. THoughts? Ned
- Envelope tests on null or illegal MAIL FROM (non)… Ned Freed
- Re: Envelope tests on null or illegal MAIL FROM (… Kjetil Torgrim Homme
- Re: Envelope tests on null or illegal MAIL FROM (… Ned Freed
- Re: Envelope tests on null or illegal MAIL FROM (… Mark E. Mallett