From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D96A966E1
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:49:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0F864CDA1
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:48:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:48:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D279B460F5
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:48:46 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:48:44 +0100
From: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Cc: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <20230125104844.304dca6b@rosa.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <cd684988-2918-07e6-7f3a-14e27fbcd4c7@proxmox.com>
References: <20230123155521.28307-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
<20230123155521.28307-3-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
<cd684988-2918-07e6-7f3a-14e27fbcd4c7@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.24; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.151 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL was
blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [quarantine.pm, notify.pm, utils.pm, postfix.org, smtp.pm]
Subject: Re: [pmg-devel] [PATCH pmg-api 2/2] smtputf8: keep smtputf8 from
incoming postfix, detect for local mail
X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion
<pmg-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pmg-devel>,
<mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel>,
<mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 09:49:19 -0000
Thanks for the review!
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:30:09 +0100
Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> wrote:
> Am 23/01/2023 um 16:55 schrieb Stoiko Ivanov:
> > This patch changes the detection if smtputf8 is needed as option to
> > the 'MAIL' command:
> > * for mail passing arriving through postfix it is only added if the
> > mail originally was received with it (Accept and BCC actions)
> > * for locally generated mail (Notify, reports, quarantine-link and
> > ndrs) it is decided based on utf8 characters in the mail-addresses or
> > headers
> >
> > This should approximate postfix own behavior in those cases quite
> > closely:
> > https://www.postfix.org/SMTPUTF8_README.html#using
> >
> > Notable difference is that we check the complete e-mail address and
> > not only the domain part, but I assume non-ascii local-parts to be a
> > very fringe edge-case in environments where smtputf8 is not supported.
> > If this occurs in the wild we would also need to adapt the
> > unconditional encoding of the envelope addresses in reinject_mail
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > src/PMG/API2/Quarantine.pm | 7 ++++++-
> > src/PMG/RuleDB/Notify.pm | 6 +++++-
> > src/PMG/SMTP.pm | 7 ++++++-
> > src/PMG/Utils.pm | 16 +++++++++++++---
> > 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/PMG/API2/Quarantine.pm b/src/PMG/API2/Quarantine.pm
> > index fbb302a..352f6b6 100644
> > --- a/src/PMG/API2/Quarantine.pm
> > +++ b/src/PMG/API2/Quarantine.pm
> > @@ -1239,7 +1239,12 @@ my sub send_link_mail {
> > );
> >
> > # we use an empty envelope sender (we don't want to receive NDRs)
>
> forgot to keep comment near method call?
was actually by choice - since the empty envelope sender is used in the
mail_needs_smtputf8 call as well - but can gladly move it to before the
reinject_mail call as well
>
> > - PMG::Utils::reinject_mail ($mail, '', [$receiver], undef, $fqdn);
> > +
> > + my $params;
> > + if (PMG::Utils::mail_needs_smtputf8($mail, '', [$receiver])) {
> > + $params->{mail}->{smtputf8} = 1;
> > + }
>
> I'd rather move this into reinject mail instead of copyi-pastaing the same
> code hunk five times around, after all it has all the info required to
> call mail_needs_smtputf8 there. FWICT, its done on all call sites, so you
> wouldn't even require to add an opt-out param.
The call-sites it's not added are the ones in the rulesystem -
(PMG::RuleDB::Accept/BCC) - where the mail is received from the outside
and where we don't want to autodetect the need, but simply reuse what
postfix sends us.
(maybe I could have written that a bit more explicitly in the
commit-message)
>
> > + PMG::Utils::reinject_mail ($mail, '', [$receiver], undef, $fqdn, $params);
> > }
> >
> > __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>
>
> > diff --git a/src/PMG/Utils.pm b/src/PMG/Utils.pm
> > index 9c6f841..1ccd7d2 100644
> > --- a/src/PMG/Utils.pm
> > +++ b/src/PMG/Utils.pm
> > @@ -232,6 +232,10 @@ sub mail_needs_smtputf8 {
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + if ($entity->head()->as_string() =~ /([^\p{PosixPrint}\n\r\t])/) {
> > + return 1;
> > + }
>
>
> you're reintroducing the hunk you removed in patch 1/2 without really adding any
> explicit reasoning, or is 1/2 just intended as uncontroversial stop gap to apply
> while 2/2 is still being checked more closely, or what's the deal here?
The idea was to apply 1/2 (as stop-gap measure) quite soon and get it out -
so that most users with disabled smtputf8 and non-ascii characters in
received mail get their systems working again, while 2/2 was something
that might benefit from a more through review.
I'll try to rewrite the commit message to reference 1/2 (or it's commit
hash once applied) explicitly