On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 08:57:48PM +0000, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
> November 18, 2020 9:54 PM, "Joerg Jung" <m...@umaxx.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > in my opinion revision 1.423 of smtp_session.c went a bit too far.
> > Enforcing that ORCPT has to have domain results in breakage in real
> > world usage. For example, sending from root user cron jobs mails
> > via Postfix aliased to an address handled by OpenSMTPD will fail.
> >
> > RFC leaves some room for interpretation here, but interoperability
> > may be considered important as well. GitHub issue #1084 [1] has
> > some more elaborations and examples, but was opened for the same
> > reason.
> >
> > Therefore, I propose the following diff below to slightly relax
> > the ORCPT check again by skipping the domain part check.
> >
> > Comments, OK?
> >
>
> maybe just skip the check ONLY if domain part is empty ?
>
Like in the diff below and assuming that domain part is always
nul terminated after text_to_mailaddr()?
OK?
Index: smtp_session.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/smtpd/smtp_session.c,v
retrieving revision 1.426
diff -u -p -r1.426 smtp_session.c
--- smtp_session.c 24 Apr 2020 11:34:07 -0000 1.426
+++ smtp_session.c 18 Nov 2020 21:10:36 -0000
@@ -2583,7 +2583,8 @@ smtp_tx_rcpt_to(struct smtp_tx *tx, cons
if (!text_to_mailaddr(&tx->evp.dsn_orcpt, opt) ||
!valid_localpart(tx->evp.dsn_orcpt.user) ||
- !valid_domainpart(tx->evp.dsn_orcpt.domain)) {
+ (strlen(tx->evp.dsn_orcpt.domain) != 0 &&
+ !valid_domainpart(tx->evp.dsn_orcpt.domain))) {
smtp_reply(tx->session,
"553 ORCPT address syntax error");
return;
