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 -- You received this mail because you are subscribed to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send a mail to: [email protected]
