Re: [exim] Unqualified addresses

Chambers, Phil wrote:
> I have just been dealing with an issue where we are blocking messages
> because the message header contains 'To: GroupName'. We reject at
> the end of the DATA phase with 'Unqualified address not permitted'.
> I believe this comes from 'verify = header_syntax' in my DATA ACL.
>
> The sender of the message is using Apple Mail and 'GroupName' is the
> name of an address group. He has ticked a box which says 'hide
> addresses of recipients' (or some such). I don't have Apple Mail
> available to look at the details.
>
> I have explained that the proper syntax for this is 'To: GroupName:;'
> but the sender's response is predictably 'Apple can't be wrong'. I
> have also suggested he use the Bcc: header instead of the To: header.
> The response is 'you are the only site which rejects my mail, so you
> must be wrong'.
>
> I find it hard to believe that the sender is not getting this problem
> from other sites, so I am looking to find out if I am unusual in
> rejecting messages with unqualified addresses in the header (as
> opposed to the envelope). Would you allow such a message in?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Phil. -------------------- Phil Chambers Postmaster University of
> Exeter

Perhaps - perhaps not ...I can't be certain unless I could log one.

You are apparently passing it OK in acl_smtp_rcpt, then rejecting in
acl_smtp_data on header format RFC compliance.

Paranoid as I am, we generally just 'score harshly' for (most) format
errors IF the mesage has gotten that far.

So far, that has been more for Redmond's faux pas than Cupertino's.

If you are passing Outlook & Exchange garbage, dunno how harmful this
one would be.


Bill

NB:

I have two OS X here (PowerBook 17" G4 and Mac Mini G4).

But cannot test as neither one has Apple's Mail.app, which is the second
POS we remove at installation time. (HFS/HFS+ being the first..).