On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Phil Pennock <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-10-12 at 09:11 -0700, Todd Lyons wrote: >> This is processed and detected starting at line 5018 in src/deliver.c. >> It is the original code since Philip Hazel imported it, so I don't >> think it's the problem. It detects it properly. The '>' is a flag of > It looks as though we have a false comment in filter.c then: > 2260 /* Create the "address" for the autoreply. This is used only for > logging, > 2261 as the actual recipients are extracted from the To: line by -t. We > use the > 2262 same logic here to extract the working addresses (there may be > more than > 2263 one). Just in case there are a vast number of addresses, stop when > the > 2264 string gets too long. */
Ok, so the addr structure was originally not used for sending this? > This code was added in c25242d781667319938db77399e2073ba9e798f8; > ChangeLog entry was for release 4.60: > ----------------------------8< cut here >8------------------------------ > PH/05 When a filter generated an autoreply, the entire To: header line was > quoted in the delivery log line, like this: > > => >A.N.Other <[email protected]> <original@ddress> ... > > This has been changed so that it extracts the operative address. There > may be more than one such address. If so, they are comma-separated, like > this: > > => >[email protected],[email protected] <original@ddress> ... > ----------------------------8< cut here >8------------------------------ > Note that part of the commit diff is: > - addr = deliver_make_addr(string_sprintf(">%.256s", to), FALSE); > + addr = deliver_make_addr(log_addr, FALSE); > > So the "addr" was with the > prefix before this too. I don't know what to make of this just yet. >> Has nobody ever used this before and noticed that email addresses >> still have this '>' character in front of them? Googling didn't find >> any for me. > I suspect that at some point, the "-t parse" logic must have been > removed/simplified away without realising the address format. Ah, good point. Maybe we can look and find said parse logic. I didn't google very well before apparently. I dug a little more and found something from 2008: http://forum.lissyara.su/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8366#p68304 I don't read Russian, but I did see this debug output: 2540 Filter: end of processing 2540 system filter returned 1 2540 system filter added [email protected] 2540 system filter added [email protected] 2540 Delivery address list: 2540 [email protected] 2540 [email protected] 2540 [email protected] It's without the '>' mark, so there's at least a possibility that the simple fix is to strip the leading '>' before it prints this output. ...Todd -- The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
