At 10.26 18/04/2007, Stephane Bouvard (ML) wrote:
,- - [ Le mercredi 18 avril 2007 vers 9:33 tonix
(Antonio Nati) écrivait: ] - -
> I don't see any reason to check for the content
> of alias, looking for a "bouncing" string. Apart
> .qmail-default, I don't see a reason why a
> .qmail-ALIAS should contain a bouncing string.
There is for me a reason : when using a
catch-all if you want to disable some specific
address... i know that actually if the
.qmail-default specify a catch-all, chkuser does
not look further and accept the mail, but it
should be easy in that case to still verify if
the specific user is not configured to bounce...
Internal logic should be changed. I have to
change/extend it for other reasons, I will look for this also in case.
Anyway, for me, if a .qmail-xyz specify
"bounce-no-mailbox" for any reason, i do not see
why chkuser should accept the mail and let qmail
bounce it as it's easy to avoid... it's an opengate for spammers.
Let's try to distinguish problems.
.qmail-default has an architectural reason to
exist, as qmail architecture delivers to
.qmail-default all emails for not existing users.
Inside .qmail-default there is the logic for
rejecting/deleting/storing all those messages. We
simply know "default" is a "fake alias", that
must exist but has nothing to do with whatever other alias you may create.
It would be good if chkuser add an option to
reject "default" rcpt, as it is a fake "rcpt". This will close a qmail hole.
Different matter is to handle in a more extended
way users/aliases, despite of bounce/delete/catchall.
Additional checking could be done (I'm thinking
about quota checking) even if catchall/delete is specified.
I suggest also to introduce a new notation for
rejecting users/aliases with a custom message
(i.e.: reject "user has changed address. Write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"). This would be a lot more useful than
barely put a generic "bounce" string.
This additional checking should be done on
aliases AND on .qmail-default inside each user's
directory. Not to mention some parts should be
rewritten in local delivery, as it does not use SMTP.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bien à vous...
(_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier !
,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be