OT - EMEW (Enhanced Message-ID as Email Watermark) breaks pipermail threading

Hugo van der Kooij hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org
Sun Aug 31 17:46:29 IST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 08:19:53AM +0200, Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
>> I think that the following header detection lines in postfix will spot
>> and reject this specific RFC violation for me:
>> #       RFC2822 violations
>> /^References:.*<EMEW-[\-\.0-9A-Za-z]*@vanderkooij.org>/ REJECT  Your
>> MessageID modifications of my MessageID violate RFC 2822 section 3.6.4
>> /^In-Reply-To:.*<EMEW-[\-\.0-9A-Za-z]*@vanderkooij.org>/        REJECT
>> Your MessageID modifications of my MessageID violate RFC 2822 section 3.6.4
> Rejecting because of the In-Reply-To: is probably OK for what you intend,
> but rejecting because of the References: is likely accusing an innocent
> 3rd party.

I guess both expressions might be better if I use the non-greedy
version. But with the limitations I use and each MessageID being
correctly wrapped up in <> and seperated with a folding whitespace the
whitespace will not be allowed as part of the regex.

In fact I might be missing cases where the abused MessageID is not on
the exact line where the two indicated headers are. I guess that postfix
actually joins things back to one line. But that is a reasonable guess
and not something I can determine for sure based on the manual page (man
5 header_check)


- --
hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org               http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/
PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc

	A: Yes.
	>Q: Are you sure?
	>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
	>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the MailScanner mailing list