On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:23:53 -0400
John Jetmore wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Dave Evans
> <exim-users-20081202@???> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 02:38:37PM +0300, Nikita Koshikov wrote:
> >> Hello exim experts,
> >>
> >> I need exim to rewrite addresses like: <user@domain*admin> to the form <user@domain>.
> >>
> >> Here is the rule I made for this:
> >>
> >> \N^(.*)\*admin(.*)?$\N $1$2 S
> >>
> >> This is working on smtp-time MAIL FROM stage as I needed, but headers doesn't touched by it.
> >> Adding one more rule without S flag didn't help and body headers From, Sender, etc list unrewritten data.
> >>
> >> What's wrong and how can I fix this ?
> >
> > Well on my box, rewriting aside,
> >
> > # exim4 -brw 'user@???*admin'
> > Syntax error in user@???*admin
> > Malformed address: *admin may not follow user@???
> >
> > Since user@???*admin isn't a valid address (on account of "*" not being
> > allowed in domain names), it looks to me like you're going to have a really
> > hard time making it work.
>
> Dave's right, though it took me a few minutes to prove it to myself.
> I thought the "Malformed address" error was lingering from other
> checks, but it seems to be core to rewriting. The address won't even
> be considered if it's invalid like that. For instance, this logically
> behaves the way you want, rewriting both the SMTP and Message headers
> when tested against user*admin@???.
>
> \N^(.*)\*admin(.*)?$\N $1$2 Sh
>
> However, when tested against user@???*admin, the SMTP-time
> rewrite works because it is defined as not caring about the syntax.
> However, it looks like exim's concept of what a domain is is so
> ingrained that it doesn't recognize user@???*admin as a valid
> email and therefore never even attempts to apply a rewrite rule to it.
> I did prove to myself that the one rule/two rule thing is a red
> herring - it doesn't work because, in header rewrites, exim doesn't
> see it as an email address.
>
> I don't really understand whether this is a bug or not. My initial
> impression is that, in address rewriting, this is the correct behavior
> because it's not actually an address. I wonder if any of the more
> generic rewriting functionality available in routers and transports
> might be of more use to you.
Thanks John, for time you spent checking and clearing this.
I will try try transport section, but it's not so handy as global rewrite for me.
