Sunil Shetye <shetye(_at_)bombay(_dot_)retortsoft(_dot_)com>:
In a bounce message from a multidrop mailbox, the recipient address in
Final-Recipient: has two '@'s:
Reporting-MTA: dns; localhost
Final-Recipient: rfc822;
unknown(_at_)bombay(_dot_)retortsoft(_dot_)com@localhost
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:05:39 +0530 (IST)
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: 550 5.1.1
<unknown(_at_)bombay(_dot_)retortsoft(_dot_)com>... User unknown
Also, there seems to be a slight difference between the handling of
addresses in smtp and bsmtp. In bsmtp, the smtpname setting is checked
for first; in smtp, the '@' character is checked for first. I am not
sure if a different handling is required for the two.
This is because the recipient address is handled in different places
in different ways.
Here is a patch which uses the same function for handling of recipient
addresses in
1) rcpt to original address,
2) rcpt to postmaster (in case of no good addresses)
3) bsmtp to original address,
4) address mentioned in Final-Recipient: in bounce mail.
This patch also allows handle_smtp_report() to do RSET now.
I like the rcpt_address cleanup part. If you'll send me a patch that just
does that, I'll take it instantly (before 6.0.0).
I'm a warier of the RSET change. I've been burned here before and
am going to take convincing that it can't introduce bugs.
You do very good work, Sunil. It's gotten to the point where I usually
trust your patches without more than running an eyeball over them to
see if anything is obviously wrong. But on this one I'm getting a tingle
from my spider-sense...
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>