Phil Vandry:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:20:48AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > It isn't difficult to add the local TCP port number to the Dovecot
> > > SASL request. May I suggest that this be added?
> >
> > You may suggest, but you may not know what you're asking for. Adding
> > server (local) port support to Postfix was discussed a few weeks
> > ago here.
>
> I'm sorry, I hope I'm not duplicating anything... but I didn't see
> this topic in the list archive.
>
> > For consistency server port support needs to work in the exact same
> > way as the existing code for client (remote) port support. According
>
> It sounds like you're saying that support for testing the server port
> shouldn't be added at all unless it is added consistently throughout
> Postfix.
Indeed. There are few things as frustrating as a feature that
works only in some setttings and that lets users down in
other settings.
> I disagree that just applying my patch to the Dovecot SASL code
> without adding support for the server port in many other places in
> Postfix would cause user surprises. The fact that you would be able
Postfix allows a client to connect to the server through a proxy.
Naively doing a getsockname() call on the SMTP server's file
descriptor would produce an incorrect result (the port of the
proxy-to-Postfix connection). The correct result uses the port
(and IP address) of the client-to-proxy connection. And that is
just one scenario that uses ports and that you weren't aware of.
This is what I mean that a feature works only in some settings
and lets users down in others, causing surprises and frustration.
Wietse
