Re: [pmg-devel] [PATCH pmg-api 2/2] smtputf8: keep smtputf8 from incoming postfix, detect for local mail

[Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>]

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.