[BUG?] Problem whitelisting address containing '+'

[Julian Field]

<x-flowed>
At 13:18 29/07/2004, you wrote:
>change this:
>
>    # Now it's got an @ sign and something both sides of it
>    # Change . into \., @ into \@, * into .*
>    $rule =~ s/\@/\\@/g;
>    $rule =~ s/\./\\./g;
>    $rule =~ s/\*/.*/g;
>
>to this:
>
>    # Now it's got an @ sign and something both sides of it
>    # Change . into \., @ into \@, + into \+, * into .*
>    $rule =~ s/\@/\\@/g;
>    $rule =~ s/\./\\./g;
>    $rule =~ s/\+/\\+/g;
>    $rule =~ s/\*/.*/g;
>A Question
>----------
>But is this omitting to escape '+' characters in addresses a bug or
>deliberate design decision?  [Julian?]

It's a bug. Well spotted. Fixed for the next release.

>*  if a bug then the above tweak fixes it (but are there any other
>    metacharacters that should also be escaped?)

Not many are allowed in email addresses anyway.

>The problem is that applying the above fix will break the configuration of
>anyone who has already discovered the problem and is manually escaping the
>'+' character in the address patterns within their rules files.  (But how
>many people will be affected by this?)

I very much doubt that's a problem.

Thanks for reporting this bug.
--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html
</x-flowed>