Eric has agreed with the idea, unless there are objections this is how we're going to handle this issue.
Speak out now if you dislike the idea :-) Gilles On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:22:31PM -0700, Barbier, Jason wrote: > yeah to be fair I would agree with Gilles no knob other than trace. > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Gilles Chehade <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:26:29PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > > > On 2014-09-29 21:35, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:50:41AM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > > > > > On 2014-09-05 19:22, Giovanni Bechis wrote: > > > > > > On 09/01/14 18:53, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > > > > > > > On 2014-09-01 11:46, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > > > > >> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:28:00PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> On 2014-08-22 18:32, Giovanni Bechis wrote: > > > > > > >>>> On 08/22/14 14:30, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> I recently had some messages bounce from gmail.com. I went > > up to their forums > > > > > > >>>>> to ask what's up, and on the replies, it was pointed out to > > my that gsmtpd > > > > > > >>>>> actually sends a rather verbose explanation message when it > > bounces messages > > > > > > >>>>> (eg: if it's spam, invalid return address, blacklisted > > address, etc). > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Here's the thread were this was pointed to me. I'm guessing > > that sending an > > > > > > >>>>> email from a non-static IP range is enough to trigger a > > bounce harmelessly: > > > > > > >>>>> > > https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/SQQAbew5tfE/-ue8aO07sf8J > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Can somebody confirm if these explanations are being dropped > > by smtpd, if > > > > > > >>>>> they're non-standard, or what's going on? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> gmail warnings are splitted in two or more lines and smtpd > > logs only one of them. > > > > > > >>>> See https://github.com/OpenSMTPD/OpenSMTPD/issues/365 for > > details. > > > > > > >>>> Cheers > > > > > > >>>> Giovanni > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> -- > > > > > > >>>> You received this mail because you are subscribed to > > [email protected] > > > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to: > > [email protected] > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Looks like the devs were expecting this to make it to the list > > and it did not. > > > > > > >>> Can we bring that up now? Are there any downsides to > > implementing this? > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes, we were waiting for the discussion to come up. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> There's a downside to implementing this: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Imagine you create an account for me on your server. > > > > > > >> I then decide to go rogue and setup a remote MX which will > > reply with > > > > > > >> a HUGE response, say 1000s of lines. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> We need to log atomically so: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> a- log line can't be written until we're done reading response; > > > > > > >> b- session needs to remember every line of the response until > > done reading; > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't we not-log all of it, but keep the message and send it to > > the original > > > > > > > sender? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The logs could be something like: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "550 Error... [25 more lines trimmed]" > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to have at maximum 5/6 lines of response on my log to > > be able to found if a problem is recurring and which could be the original > > cause. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Giovanni > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this mail because you are subscribed to > > [email protected] > > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a mail to: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like this thread died fast, and nothing was decided. > > > > > Is there any interest on implementing this/making it configurable? > > > > > > > > > > Would these errors be outputed if smtpd is run with "-v"? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, what about the following: > > > > > > > > - we read n lines, strip their newline and concat them; > > > > - if reply was > n line, we log that output was truncated and needs to > > > > be analyzed through smtpctl trace > > > > > > > > Would that be ok for everyone ? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Gilles Chehade > > > > > > > > https://www.poolp.org > > @poolpOrg > > > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > Maybe some users will want this to be configurable (on/off). > > > > > > > That's not something I like to do as you probably already know ;p > > > > > > > > -- > > Gilles Chehade > > > > https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg > > > > -- > > You received this mail because you are subscribed to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe, send a mail to: [email protected] > > > > > > > -- > Jason Barbier | [email protected] > Pro Patria Vigilans -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg -- You received this mail because you are subscribed to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send a mail to: [email protected]
