Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mailname same as recipient hostname fails #60

Open
reedjc opened this issue Nov 18, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

mailname same as recipient hostname fails #60

reedjc opened this issue Nov 18, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@reedjc
Copy link

reedjc commented Nov 18, 2018

My mailname as set to same as the recipient hostname.

mail(1) using dma complained like:
send-mail: no recipients
Can't send mail: sendmail process failed with error code 66

dma logged
Nov 17 18:26:37 work dma[4a11a1]: no recipients

See add_recp() in dma.c:

192         host = strrchr(it->addr, '@');
193         if (host != NULL &&
194             (strcmp(host + 1, hostname()) == 0 ||
195              strcmp(host + 1, "localhost") == 0)) {
196                 *host = 0;
197         }

So this undocumented (?) behavior hides the hostname (in it->addr).

My trivial workaround is to mix up the case of my mailname (since the above strcmp is case sensitive).

Please document this behavior or please consider removing it or having it optional.

Also while there, two different conditions can log "no recipients". Please change one so don't have potential for identical logging.

@corecode
Copy link
Owner

what do you mean by mailname?

@reedjc
Copy link
Author

reedjc commented Nov 18, 2018

MAILNAME which is config.mailname set to a path and that file's value returned via util.c's hostname().

By the way, I was looking at master branch, but I am running DragonFly Mail Agent v0.11 from Ubuntu package dma 0.11-1build1.

@corecode
Copy link
Owner

how come it doesn't log invalid recipient?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants