You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2012/02/15 22:35:06 UTC
[Bug 6759] New: "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
Bug #: 6759
Summary: "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.3.2
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Libraries
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: alex@netpbx.de
Classification: Unclassified
r447014 reverted r157052 from bug 4184
Postfix sometimes(!?) adds a semicolon after "with ESMTPA".
r447014 should delete any ";" on the end of line but somehow it doesn't.
I patched line 391 of Received.pm
< if (/ by / && / with (ESMTPA|ESMTPSA|LMTPA|LMTPSA|ASMTP|HTTPU?)(?: |$)/i) {
> if (/ by / && / with (ESMTPA|ESMTPSA|LMTPA|LMTPSA|ASMTP|HTTPU?)(?: |$|;)/i) {
Before:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
mail.wissler-group.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: **********
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=11.0 required=5.0 tests=DYN_RDNS_AND_INLINE_IMAGE,
DYN_RDNS_SHORT_HELO_HTML,DYN_RDNS_SHORT_HELO_IMAGE,FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,
HELO_NO_DOMAIN,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL,RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK,
RDNS_DYNAMIC,SHORT_HELO_AND_INLINE_IMAGE,TVD_RCVD_SINGLE,
T_DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX_IMAGE,T_FRT_CONTACT autolearn=no version=3.3.2
Received: from AGNBJL (ip-2-204-127-124.web.vodafone.de [2.204.127.124])
by mail.wissler-group.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA;
Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:24:57 +0100 (CET)
After:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
mail.wissler-group.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,HTML_MESSAGE,
TVD_RCVD_SINGLE,T_FRT_CONTACT autolearn=no version=3.3.2
Received: from AGNBJL (ip-2-204-127-124.web.vodafone.de [2.204.127.124])
by mail.wissler-group.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA;
Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:24:57 +0100 (CET)
Maybe this should be solved in Postfix (2.8.3). One could also use
"smtpd_sasl_authenticated_header = yes", yet what does it harm adding a test
for the semicolon in spamassassin?
Alex
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.4.0
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
--- Comment #7 from Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> ---
Created attachment 5063
--> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=5063&action=edit
change expected auth result of three test cases in t/rcvd_parser.t
Kevin wrote:
> I think you might have broken things with the Received.pm test.
> I'm currently not able to do a make test on trunk either.
Thanks. Actually I think that three test cases in t/rcvd_parser.t
are broken (wrong expected 'auth' result), and the fix just exposed
the problem.
Attached is a change to these test cases in t/rcvd_parser.t,
please review if my assumption is correct.
trunk (3.4.0):
Bug 6759: "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm - fix
three test cases in rcvd_parser.t
Sending t/rcvd_parser.t
Committed revision 1338477.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
--- Comment #6 from Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> ---
trunk (3.4.0):
Bug 6759: "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm
(recognize semicolon as a terminator)
Sending lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Metadata/Received.pm
Committed revision 1338216.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
--- Comment #3 from D. Stussy <so...@kd6lvw.ampr.org> 2012-02-19 20:05:45 UTC ---
As far as the addition of the semicolon to the end of the regex goes, why do we
need a real-world example if such is perfectly legal given the ABNF syntax in
RFC 5321? If the "id" and "for" clauses are omitted, the semicolon will indeed
trail the "with" clause's parameter. However, as a semicolon followed by a
date is always required per the syntax (cf. RFC 5322), the "$" to terminate the
string should NEVER occur in a properly formatted message. Even if we're
testing a wrapped header without unwrapping it, the semicolon will appear
BEFORE the newline+tab wrapping the date on the next line.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
D. Stussy <so...@kd6lvw.ampr.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |software+spamassassin@kd6lv
| |w.ampr.org
--- Comment #1 from D. Stussy <so...@kd6lvw.ampr.org> 2012-02-16 04:09:39 UTC ---
ASMTP? HTTPU? WTF? Those aren't listed at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters. Regardless, the regex could
be written much better:
"(?:(?:(?:D|E|UTF8)?(?:L|S)MTP8?|(?:HT|NN)TP)S?A?|MMS)"
I think that covers everthing that the IANA says is legal plus webmail and
Usenet gateways (authenticated and/or SSL'ed or not).
However, I do agree that a semicolon need be added as the "with" clause could
be the last before the date field.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
--- Comment #5 from Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> 2012-04-24 19:24:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 5057
--> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=5057
deal with semicolon, recognize newer standard protocols for auth mail
submission
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters
Sub-registry: WITH protocol types
(only the authenticated subset of protocol types)
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #8 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> ---
Agreed. The auth=HTTP certainly makes sense to me and the tests look good.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
--- Comment #4 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2012-02-20 14:27:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> As far as the addition of the semicolon to the end of the regex goes, why do we
> need a real-world example if such is perfectly legal given the ABNF syntax in
> RFC 5321? If the "id" and "for" clauses are omitted, the semicolon will indeed
> trail the "with" clause's parameter. However, as a semicolon followed by a
> date is always required per the syntax (cf. RFC 5322), the "$" to terminate the
> string should NEVER occur in a properly formatted message. Even if we're
> testing a wrapped header without unwrapping it, the semicolon will appear
> BEFORE the newline+tab wrapping the date on the next line.
I'd *prefer* real-world but will accept synthesized.
Overall though, if you add failure and success cases it will help avoid issues
where things get forgotten because according to Alex, this bug was caused by an
update that overrode an older bug.
Test cases would have solved that issue and they would prove the regexs work as
intended both for success and failure.
Regards,
KAM
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kmcgrail@pccc.com
--- Comment #2 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2012-02-19 14:27:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> ASMTP? HTTPU? WTF? Those aren't listed at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters. Regardless, the regex could
> be written much better:
>
> "(?:(?:(?:D|E|UTF8)?(?:L|S)MTP8?|(?:HT|NN)TP)S?A?|MMS)"
>
> I think that covers everthing that the IANA says is legal plus webmail and
> Usenet gateways (authenticated and/or SSL'ed or not).
>
> However, I do agree that a semicolon need be added as the "with" clause could
> be the last before the date field.
What these need is examples added to the test rcvd_parser.t so that we have a
make test framework on these. Can you please look for real-world examples to
add?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.