Lars Nordin wrote:
> Are there any plans to modify the format to be compliant with the RFC?
Now that you say it ... do me a favor and test the patch below, I'm too
tired now. I'll commit it tomorrow if it works ...
--- expand.c 2007-05-11 00:06:08.000000000 +0200
+++ expand.c.orig 2007-05-11 00:04:48.000000000 +0200
@@ -3699,11 +3699,11 @@
*domain++ = '\0';
yield = string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,US"prvs=",5);
+ string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,sub_arg[0],Ustrlen(sub_arg[0]));
+ string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,US"/",1);
string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,(sub_arg[2] != NULL) ? sub_arg[2] :
US"0", 1);
string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,prvs_daystamp(7),3);
string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,p,6);
- string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,US"=",1);
- string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,sub_arg[0],Ustrlen(sub_arg[0]));
string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,US"@",1);
string_cat(yield,&size,&ptr,domain,Ustrlen(domain));
@@ -3741,15 +3741,15 @@
case 3: goto EXPAND_FAILED;
}
- re =
regex_must_compile(US"^prvs\\=([0-9])([0-9]{3})([A-F0-9]{6})\\=(.+)\\@(.+)$",
+ re =
regex_must_compile(US"^prvs\\=(.+)\\/([0-9])([0-9]{3})([A-F0-9]{6})\\@(.+)$",
TRUE,FALSE);
if (regex_match_and_setup(re,sub_arg[0],0,-1))
{
- uschar *local_part =
string_copyn(expand_nstring[4],expand_nlength[4]);
- uschar *key_num =
string_copyn(expand_nstring[1],expand_nlength[1]);
- uschar *daystamp =
string_copyn(expand_nstring[2],expand_nlength[2]);
- uschar *hash = string_copyn(expand_nstring[3],expand_nlength[3]);
+ uschar *local_part =
string_copyn(expand_nstring[1],expand_nlength[1]);
+ uschar *key_num =
string_copyn(expand_nstring[2],expand_nlength[2]);
+ uschar *daystamp =
string_copyn(expand_nstring[3],expand_nlength[3]);
+ uschar *hash = string_copyn(expand_nstring[4],expand_nlength[4]);
uschar *domain =
string_copyn(expand_nstring[5],expand_nlength[5]);
DEBUG(D_expand) debug_printf("prvscheck localpart: %s\n",
local_part);