Mailing List Archive: SpamAssassin: devel

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Jan 13, 2004, 7:12 PM

Post #1 of 11 (367 views)
Permalink

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

------- Additional Comments From Darxus [at] ChaosReigns 2004-01-13 17:18 -------
Subject: Re: New: outputting malformed Received headers

Also,

by server1.12net.dk with SpamAssassin (2.61 1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp)

should be changed to

by server1.12net.dk (SpamAssassin 2.61 1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp)

"with" is for specifying the protocol (SMTP/ESMTP).

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Jan 14, 2004, 12:27 AM

Post #2 of 11 (352 views)
Permalink

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib [at] msquadrat 2004-01-13 22:32 -------
For the first comment, I'll check the RFCs today, but I think you're right.
IIRC may the "from" part contain only one token.

About the "with" part: "SpamAssassin" *is* our protocol ;-)

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Jan 14, 2004, 6:14 PM

Post #3 of 11 (352 views)
Permalink

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib [at] msquadrat 2004-01-14 16:19 -------
Darxus, you're right. Here're the relevant parts from the RFCs (yeah, I know
you've all read em often enough but I've copied those parts anyway ;~):

RFC 2822:
3.6.7 Trace fields
received = "Received:" name-val-list ";" date-time CRLF
name-val-list = [CFWS] [name-val-pair *(CFWS name-val-pair)]
name-val-pair = item-name CFWS item-value
item-name = ALPHA *(["-"] (ALPHA / DIGIT))
item-value = 1*angle-addr / addr-spec /
atom / domain / msg-id
3.4.1. Addr-spec specification
domain = dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain
domain-literal = [CFWS] "[" *([FWS] dcontent) [FWS] "]" [CFWS]
3.2.4. Atom
atom = [CFWS] 1*atext [CFWS]
dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]
dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)

RFC 2821:
4.4 Trace Information
Time-stamp-line = "Received:" FWS Stamp <CRLF>
Stamp = From-domain By-domain Opt-info ";" FWS date-time
From-domain = "FROM" FWS Extended-Domain CFWS
Extended-Domain = Domain /
( Domain FWS "(" TCP-info ")" ) /
( Address-literal FWS "(" TCP-info ")" )
TCP-info = Address-literal / ( Domain FWS Address-literal )
; Information derived by server from TCP connection
; not client EHLO.

To make it short:
"from" Domain Address-literal
is not allowed. Patch follows.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Jan 14, 2004, 6:22 PM

Post #4 of 11 (352 views)
Permalink

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib [at] msquadrat 2004-01-14 16:27 -------
Created an attachment (id=1690)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=1690&action=view)
Patch against PerMsgStatus.pm

This patch removes the [127.0.0.1] part. Actually the RFC 2821 says
- The FROM field, which MUST be supplied in an SMTP environment,
SHOULD contain both (1) the name of the source host as presented
in the EHLO command and (2) an address literal containing the IP
address of the source, determined from the TCP connection.
But as localhost is localhost I think this is not necessary here :)

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Jan 14, 2004, 6:30 PM

Post #5 of 11 (360 views)
Permalink

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib [at] msquadrat 2004-01-14 16:35 -------
Already committed to HEAD. Should this go also into 2.62? Might confuse mail
parser/other spam checker.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Jan 14, 2004, 7:18 PM

Post #6 of 11 (352 views)
Permalink

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

------- Additional Comments From jm [at] jmason 2004-01-14 17:23 -------
patch is good, but IMO it may be too late for 2.62; I'd prefer
to leave it for 2.63 (or 2.70, whichever happens first).

This is *not* a 2.6x showstopper bug by any means, and if it
means delaying 2.62, it's not worth it.

+1 anyway, FWIW

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Jan 16, 2004, 3:08 PM

Post #7 of 11 (352 views)
Permalink

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

------- Additional Comments From spamassassin-contrib [at] msquadrat 2004-01-16 13:13 -------
committed.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla

Jan 17, 2004, 5:41 PM

Post #8 of 11 (352 views)
Permalink

[Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

------- Additional Comments From felicity [at] kluge 2004-01-17 15:46 -------
this seems to have been committed against 2.62 after the freeze... haven't checked if it went into
head.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

msquadrat.nospamplease at gmx

Jan 18, 2004, 9:07 AM

Post #9 of 11 (352 views)
Permalink

Re: [Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

On Sunday 18 January 2004 01:41 CET theo wrote:
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2924
> this seems to have been committed against 2.62 after the freeze... haven't
> checked if it went into head.

Freeze? What freeze? Is it possible that we have some new rules I didn't
notice? I also wondered about the [review] tag in Bugzilla lately...

Cheers,
Malte

P.S.: That patch went to HEAD, too.

--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>

felicity at kluge

Jan 18, 2004, 11:33 AM

Post #10 of 11 (353 views)
Permalink

Re: [Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:07:23PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> Freeze? What freeze? Is it possible that we have some new rules I didn't
> notice? I also wondered about the [review] tag in Bugzilla lately...

Yeah, it wasn't really well announced in retrospect. We got all the
2.62 bug tickets closed on tuesday and "froze" the code (there was a
mail to dev about it) for testing on wednesday for release thursday.
I started working on the release thursday but found issues related to
the differences between cvs and svn and our documentation, so had to
hold off until saturday.

--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Marge, tell Bart I just want to drink a nice glass of syrup like I do
every morning.

-- Homer Simpson
Lisa the Vegetarian

msquadrat.nospamplease at gmx

Jan 18, 2004, 11:43 AM

Post #11 of 11 (361 views)
Permalink

Re: [Bug 2924] outputting malformed Received headers [In reply to]

On Sunday 18 January 2004 19:33 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:07:23PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > Freeze? What freeze? Is it possible that we have some new rules I
> > didn't notice? I also wondered about the [review] tag in Bugzilla
> > lately...
>
> Yeah, it wasn't really well announced in retrospect. We got all the
> 2.62 bug tickets closed on tuesday and "froze" the code (there was a
> mail to dev about it) for testing on wednesday for release thursday.
> I started working on the release thursday but found issues related to
> the differences between cvs and svn and our documentation, so had to
> hold off until saturday.

Ah, ok. I remember that mail but just in a manner "let's finally do 2.62
release this or the next week". And then I just went and committed that
patch 24h after Justin's +1. Maybe I should have read that mail another
time before doing so :-/

Cheers,
Malte

--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads