Re: lmtpd NUL rejection

2003-01-13 Thread Lawrence Greenfield
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:24:17 +1300 (NZDT) [...] Along the way, I've discovered a related bug in lmtpd (2.1.11). If a misconfigured client sends a message with lines longer than 8190 chars, the following code in imap/lmtpengine.c (lines 672-675) will incorre

Re: lmtpd NUL rejection

2003-01-13 Thread simon . brady
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Igor Brezac wrote: > Have you tried F=1 mailer flag? This may only work in Sendmail 8.12.x. > > From op.txt: > > 1 Don't send null characters ('\0') to this mailer. We've gone live with 8.12.7, and F=1 is doing just what we hoped for: silently deleting NULs in transit.

Re: lmtpd NUL rejection

2003-01-11 Thread simon . brady
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Igor Brezac wrote: > Have you tried F=1 mailer flag? This may only work in Sendmail 8.12.x. > > From op.txt: > > 1 Don't send null characters ('\0') to this mailer. Aha, this sounds like just what we need - and yes, it was added in 8.12.0 so it looks like we've got ano

Re: lmtpd NUL rejection

2003-01-09 Thread Igor Brezac
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've recently upgraded imapd from 1.5.19 to 2.1.11, and instead of having > sendmail invoke deliver it now talks to lmtpd over a Unix socket. All is > well, except that lmtpd is much more scrupulous about checking its input > than deliver was - in th

Re: lmtpd NUL rejection

2003-01-09 Thread John Alton Tamplin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've recently upgraded imapd from 1.5.19 to 2.1.11, and instead of having sendmail invoke deliver it now talks to lmtpd over a Unix socket. All is well, except that lmtpd is much more scrupulous about checking its input than deliver was - in the space of a week, it's dete