[exim] acl: different behaviour for messages in verify = ...

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Heiko Schlittermann
Date:  
To: exim-users
Subject: [exim] acl: different behaviour for messages in verify = ...
Hello,

using 4.63:

in my RCPT ACL I've:
    ...
    require message = Huh (sender)!
        verify  = sender/callout=random


    require message = Huh (recipient)!
        verify  = recipient/callout=random
    ...


I expected exactly my message in the server response, nothing but my
message. But in the following examples you'll see that it's true only
for the recipient verification.

Now testing it with BAD SENDER:

    # exiacl -f pitti@??? -t info@???
    **> /usr/sbin/exim -C /etc/exim4/exim4.conf -oMi 145.253.107.250 -bhc 172.20.1.8
    LOG: no host name found for IP address 172.20.1.8
    < 220 paff.bioz.tzdresden.de ESMTP Exim 4.63 Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:40:52 +0100
    > EHLO schlittermann.de
    < 250-paff.bioz.tzdresden.de Hello schlittermann.de [172.20.1.8]
    < 250-SIZE 52428800
    < 250-PIPELINING
    < 250-STARTTLS
    < 250 HELP
    > MAIL FROM: pitti@???
    < 250 OK
    > RCPT TO: info@???
    LOG: H=(schlittermann.de) [172.20.1.8] sender verify fail for <pitti@???>
    LOG: H=(schlittermann.de) [172.20.1.8] F=<pitti@???> rejected RCPT info@???: \
     Sender verify failed
    < 550-Verification failed for <pitti@???>
    < 550-Previous (cached) callout verification failure
    < 550 Huh (sender)!


Now testing it with good sender but BAD recipient:

    # exiacl -f hs@??? -t drehrumbum@???
    **> /usr/sbin/exim -C /etc/exim4/exim4.conf -oMi 145.253.107.250 -bhc 172.20.1.8
    LOG: no host name found for IP address 172.20.1.8
    < 220 paff.bioz.tzdresden.de ESMTP Exim 4.63 Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:43:27 +0100
    > EHLO schlittermann.de
    < 250-paff.bioz.tzdresden.de Hello schlittermann.de [172.20.1.8]
    < 250-SIZE 52428800
    < 250-PIPELINING
    < 250-STARTTLS
    < 250 HELP
    > MAIL FROM: hs@???
    < 250 OK
    > RCPT TO: drehrumbum@???
    LOG: H=(schlittermann.de) [172.20.1.8] F=<hs@???> rejected RCPT drehrumbum@???: \
     response to "RCPT TO:<drehrumbum@???>" from mail.namos.de [145.253.108.53] was: \
     550 <drehrumbum@???>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table
    < 550 Huh (recpient)!



Is it a but or just my misunderstanding?

From a short look into acl.c, around line 1941, I get the feeling, that
it's really handled in a different way.


    Best regards from Dresden
    Viele Grüße aus Dresden
    Heiko Schlittermann
-- 
 SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support -
 Heiko Schlittermann HS12-RIPE -----------------------------------------
 gnupg encrypted messages are welcome - key ID: 48D0359B ---------------
 gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2  7E92 EE4E AC98 48D0 359B -