Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:

the EHLO/EHLO is done before the AUTH can be issued so we only
have a "checkAuthNetworks" option and not a "checkAuthClients"
option like we did for other CmdHandlers.

Sometimes, you have to defer the problem that you caught, so if the command
handler finds the problem, it can set a session attribute itself (or another
aware handler) to deal with later.

For example, the block list code is intentionally handled in RCPT because I
wanted to defer the error until we knew to whom they were sending the
e-mail, thus allowing RFC compliance with postmaster@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Yes, of course. There are plenty of changes and improvements that can be done here, but we are in RC and I'm replying to a message related to an RC.

We have the filter in that place, we will not move it around at rc level, as it is not a bug. (IMO)

The concept, for which we now have support in the v2.4 changes, was that an
"EHLO" handler could actually be a suite of related handlers registered to
be an EHLO handler, an AUTH handler, and some other type of handler(s), so
that it could set a detected concern in EHLO, possibly clear it in AUTH, and
check it downstream.

I can see thousands of improvements that can be done there, as we can add thousands handlers (we also can add thousands mailets). Btw improvements belong to trunk now.. so feel free to submit them and they will be included in the next release.

I've not formed an opinion on whether or not to fix this for v2.3 or wait
for v2.4.  I won't form an opinion until I see the proposed patch.

        --- Noel

Instead, as time passes, my idea for delaying it to 2.4 is stronger.

Again I could change ideas about things to put in 2.3 if we'll find blocker issues and the 2.3.0 final will be delayed anyway.

If we release 2.3.0 final soon we can start working on 2.4 and add this and much more new features!

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to