On 2019-01-21 04:08, Gilles Chehade wrote:
In this test case, my translations map had:
What is a translation map ?
There is no such thing in OpenSMTPD (as of today).
A virtual map that happened to be called <translation>.
You're feeding the virtual table with invalid values.
Apparently, yes.
Also, this is a recipient translation mechanism, similar to aliases,
and
not a sender rewriting mechanism which we do not have at this point.
[...]
virtual _now_ only works on recipients, not senders ?
the virtual code hasn't changed, it works the way it always did.
there is no way it could ever do what you're describing or attempting
to
do given that it doesn't operate at all anywhere near the message.
there
is no way it has ever parsed:
This is all very surprising to hear. The existing system works
(somehow). So I am apparently misunderstanding what is happening,
because with the configuration as shown, telling the various broken
email senders to use that box as their mailhost _somehow_ fixes the
bogus From: headers and envelopes.
Oh, this just occurred to me as I'm writing: I really hope I didn't
switch to a different MTA on that system years ago, and then just forgot
to check which MTA was actually running. If that's the case, I'm not
going to bother posting an update, because I'll be busy banging my head
on the wall and then hiding in shame.
I'm not convinced the new smtpd.conf grammar improves anything at all,
but I assume it must help someone or it wouldn't have changed... but I
believe my use case got thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Oh, well. :-(
This is bullshit.
The grammar doesn't reduce the functional scope, it can only expand it.
I'm taking your word for it - you will know far better than I do!
What you are describing has never existed in smtpd, there's never been
code to translate sender addresses and there's a good reason for that:
Good reasons aside, I still need to accommodate other vendor's broken
mail implementations, because I can't fix them. I know of multiple
reasons source rewriting is a bad idea, in general, but I get paid to
make stuff work, not just say that it's broken.
it not considered doable before the grammar change...
But sure, blame it on the grammar.
I believed that the grammar change had rendered my use case impossible
because <virtual> was now limited to local delivery methods. Clearly I
was wrong... and not even in the way I thought I might be wrong.
I may sound a bit harsh, but starting a thread with "this is my last
try
or I'll switch" (as if it actually matters)
My apologies - that was meant to sound more like "I have a plan B so if
this isn't possible, that's OK but I've wasted so much time on this I'm
kinda running out of time, please tell me if I should just stop now and
switch". I know *exactly* how much OpenBSD devs care if I use their
code or not! I do not want to be "that asshole", although it seems I've
succeeded again - sorry.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Now I'm going to go check that
mail server a 7,000,000th time, this time to see what MTA is actually
*running*, not just *configured*. I'm not sure whether I want it to be
such a blatant mistake on my part or not... if yes, this all makes sense
but I'm an idiot, whereas if no, then WTF, how is it working at all?
FWIW: I am much happier with OpenSMTPd than with other MTAs because of
its forward-declarative configuration syntax. Thank you for your work
on bringing a modern, lean, secure(-er) MTA into existence.
-Adam
--
You received this mail because you are subscribed to misc@opensmtpd.org
To unsubscribe, send a mail to: misc+unsubscr...@opensmtpd.org
