From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 5B77296730
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:05:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3F584CFE5
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:04:43 +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 11:04:42 +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 54C43460E3
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:04:42 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <c4232ec9-be84-f93f-e257-24e6e2951b9e@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:04:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:110.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/110.0
Content-Language: de-AT, en-GB
To: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Cc: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20230123155521.28307-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
<20230123155521.28307-3-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
<cd684988-2918-07e6-7f3a-14e27fbcd4c7@proxmox.com>
<20230125104844.304dca6b@rosa.proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230125104844.304dca6b@rosa.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.528 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
NICE_REPLY_A -1.148 Looks like a legit reply (A)
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. [utils.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 10:05:13 -0000
Am 25/01/2023 um 10:48 schrieb Stoiko Ivanov:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:30:09 +0100
> Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> - PMG::Utils::reinject_mail ($mail, '', [$receiver], undef, $fqdn);
>>> +
>>> + my $params;
>>> + if (PMG::Utils::mail_needs_smtputf8($mail, '', [$receiver])) {
>>> + $params->{mail}->{smtputf8} = 1;
>>> + }
>>
>> I'd rather move this into reinject mail instead of copyi-pastaing the same
>> code hunk five times around, after all it has all the info required to
>> call mail_needs_smtputf8 there. FWICT, its done on all call sites, so you
>> wouldn't even require to add an opt-out param.
>
> The call-sites it's not added are the ones in the rulesystem -
> (PMG::RuleDB::Accept/BCC) - where the mail is received from the outside
> and where we don't want to autodetect the need, but simply reuse what
> postfix sends us.
> (maybe I could have written that a bit more explicitly in the
> commit-message)
>
then either:
create a wrapper method that adds that param handling and switch the call
sites here over to that or move it still into reinject_mail but allow for
opt-ing out. I'd favor the first varian, as that then also allows for some
clear naming distinction for which flow (direction) which method should be
called.
>>
>>> + PMG::Utils::reinject_mail ($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
>
Please mention that explicitly the next time.