From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:48:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:48:44 +0100 From: Stoiko Ivanov To: Thomas Lamprecht Cc: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20230125104844.304dca6b@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20230123155521.28307-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> <20230123155521.28307-3-s.ivanov@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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 > > --- > > 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