Mailing List Archive: SpamAssassin: devel

[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Feb 15, 2012, 8:09 PM

Post #1 of 4 (184 views)
Permalink

[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again)

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759

D. Stussy <software+spamassassin [at] kd6lvw> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |software+spamassassin [at] kd6l
| |w.ampr.org

--- Comment #1 from D. Stussy <software+spamassassin [at] kd6lvw> 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.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Feb 19, 2012, 6:27 AM

Post #2 of 4 (165 views)
Permalink

[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again) [In reply to]

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759

Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail [at] pccc> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kmcgrail [at] pccc

--- Comment #2 from Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail [at] pccc> 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.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Feb 19, 2012, 12:05 PM

Post #3 of 4 (162 views)
Permalink

[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again) [In reply to]

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759

--- Comment #3 from D. Stussy <software+spamassassin [at] kd6lvw> 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.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Feb 20, 2012, 6:27 AM

Post #4 of 4 (163 views)
Permalink

[Bug 6759] "ESMTPA;" not detected by Received.pm (again) [In reply to]

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6759

--- Comment #4 from Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail [at] pccc> 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.

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads