> Just stick in the additional
>
> where != ACL_WHERE_NOTSMTP &&
>
> after the first or second "where" line (and fix the error message if you
> feel pedantic). I'll create a proper patch when I get back to my office
> next week.
That did it. I love easy fixes. Thanks!
-R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Hazel" <ph10@???>
To: "Rick Ennis" <rge1@???>
Cc: <exim-users@???>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Exim] verifying a local sender from an [effectively] trusted
user
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Rick Ennis wrote:
>
> > But "verify = ..." isn't valid in the "acl_not_smtp".
>
> That's an oversight. It should be possible to verify a sender in that
> ACL (it is possible to verify header lines). The fix is really trivial.
> At line 619 of acl.c you will find this code:
>
> else if (strncmpic(ss, US"sender", 6) == 0)
> {
> uschar *s = ss + 6;
> if (where != ACL_WHERE_MAIL &&
> where != ACL_WHERE_RCPT &&
> where != ACL_WHERE_DATA)
> {
> *log_msgptr = string_sprintf("cannot verify sender in ACL for %s "
> "(only possible for MAIL, RCPT, or DATA)", acl_wherenames[where]);
> return ERROR;
> }
>
> Just stick in the additional
>
> where != ACL_WHERE_NOTSMTP &&
>
> after the first or second "where" line (and fix the error message if you
> feel pedantic). I'll create a proper patch when I get back to my office
> next week.
>
> > I guess the rewrite mentioned above is really just skirting the trusted
user
> > concept. Is that what I'm doing differently from everyone else? It
should
> > be either a trusted user --which should bypass the "verify=sender"
check,
>
> Trusted users don't bypass any verification checks. They just enable -f
> to be used to set the sender (which is then checked, if a check is set
> up). For untrusted users, -f is ignored. So is the address supplied on a
> MAIL command for -bs input ... but - I've just noticed - there's an
> interesting quirk there. An ACL for MAIL will check the given address,
> verifying it if requested. However this address will be ignored later if
> the user is not trusted. Maybe this is a bug; maybe it's a facility....
