[vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
Can somebody tell me why chkuser (I'm using 2.0.8) gives a 511 response to a "user not found" error? RFC 821 gives 550 as the correct response -- Cheers Alastair Battrick www.battrick.org
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:05:20 +, Alastair Battrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RFC 821 gives 550 as the correct response http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html [] This document is a self-contained specification of the basic protocol for the Internet electronic mail transport. It consolidates, updates and clarifies, but doesn't add new or change existing functionality of the following: - the original SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) specification of RFC 821 [30], [] -- Cris, member of G.U.F.I Italian FreeBSD User Group http://www.gufi.org/
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
Cristiano Deana wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:05:20 +, Alastair Battrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: RFC 821 gives 550 as the correct response http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html Thanks Cristiano, but that RFC does not mention 511 codes either. I haven't actually read it all, but it seems to say that 551 is the correct code for 'address-updating information' -- Cheers Alastair Battrick www.battrick.org
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:31:01 +, Alastair Battrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html > Thanks Cristiano, but that RFC does not mention 511 codes either. I > haven't actually read it all, but it seems to say that 551 is the > correct code for 'address-updating information' My fault. You wrote '511', i read '551'. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1756.html But this is not smtp. -- Cris, member of G.U.F.I Italian FreeBSD User Group http://www.gufi.org/
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
I don't remember exactly, I studied a lot of documents and found same tables that lead me to that decision (to have a close correspondence to 5.x.x formats). These are all definitions within chkuser_settings.h #define CHKUSER_NORCPT_STRING "511 sorry, no mailbox here by that name (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_RESOURCE_STRING "430 system temporary unavailable, try again later (#4.3.0 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_MBXFULL_STRING "522 sorry, recipient mailbox is full (#5.2.2 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_MAXRCPT_STRING "571 sorry, reached maximum number of recipients for one session (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_MAXWRONGRCPT_STRING "571 sorry, you are violating our security policies (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_DOMAINMISSING_STRING "511 sorry, you must specify a domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_RCPTFORMAT_STRING "511 sorry, recipient address has invalid format (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_RCPTMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for rcpt domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_SENDERFORMAT_STRING "571 sorry, sender address has invalid format (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_SENDERMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for sender domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_INTRUSIONTHRESHOLD_STRING "571 sorry, you are violating our security policies (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_NORELAY_STRING "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.5.3 - chkuser)\r\n" I may change default definitions if there is any problem (but anyone may change as he/she likes). Tonino At 10.05 15/03/2005, you wrote: Can somebody tell me why chkuser (I'm using 2.0.8) gives a 511 response to a "user not found" error? RFC 821 gives 550 as the correct response -- Cheers Alastair Battrick www.battrick.org
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:22:34 +0100, tonix (Antonio Nati) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ciao Antonio, first of all compliments for your work in this patch. > I don't remember exactly, I studied a lot of documents and found same > tables that lead me to that decision (to have a close correspondence to > 5.x.x formats). I think should be better a 550 reply as RFC 2821: 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) -- Cris, member of G.U.F.I Italian FreeBSD User Group http://www.gufi.org/
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
Hi Cris, 550 is ok for #define CHKUSER_NORCPT_STRING "511 sorry, no mailbox here by that name (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" What about other cases? #define CHKUSER_MBXFULL_STRING "522 sorry, recipient mailbox is full (#5.2.2 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_MAXRCPT_STRING "571 sorry, reached maximum number of recipients for one session (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_MAXWRONGRCPT_STRING "571 sorry, you are violating our security policies (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_DOMAINMISSING_STRING "511 sorry, you must specify a domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_RCPTFORMAT_STRING "511 sorry, recipient address has invalid format (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_RCPTMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for rcpt domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_SENDERFORMAT_STRING "571 sorry, sender address has invalid format (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_SENDERMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for sender domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_INTRUSIONTHRESHOLD_STRING "571 sorry, you are violating our security policies (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_NORELAY_STRING "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.5.3 - chkuser)\r\n" I feel #define CHKUSER_RESOURCE_STRING "430 system temporary unavailable, try again later (#4.3.0 - chkuser)\r\n" is probably ok as it is. Tonino At 13.48 15/03/2005, you wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:22:34 +0100, tonix (Antonio Nati) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ciao Antonio, first of all compliments for your work in this patch. > I don't remember exactly, I studied a lot of documents and found same > tables that lead me to that decision (to have a close correspondence to > 5.x.x formats). I think should be better a 550 reply as RFC 2821: 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) -- Cris, member of G.U.F.I Italian FreeBSD User Group http://www.gufi.org/
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote: #define CHKUSER_MBXFULL_STRING "522 sorry, recipient mailbox is full (#5.2.2 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_RCPTMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for rcpt domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_SENDERMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for sender domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" Should these not be temporary 4XX errors? -- Cheers Alastair Battrick www.battrick.org
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:58:45 +0100, tonix (Antonio Nati) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 550 is ok for > #define CHKUSER_NORCPT_STRING "511 sorry, no mailbox here by that name > (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html Section 4.2: SMTP Replies > #define CHKUSER_MBXFULL_STRING "522 sorry, recipient mailbox is full > (#5.2.2 - chkuser)\r\n" 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation > #define CHKUSER_MAXRCPT_STRING "571 sorry, reached maximum number of > recipients for one session (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" 450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable (this will be a transient error) > #define CHKUSER_MAXWRONGRCPT_STRING "571 sorry, you are violating our > security policies (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) > #define CHKUSER_DOMAINMISSING_STRING "511 sorry, you must specify a domain 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) > #define CHKUSER_RCPTFORMAT_STRING "511 sorry, recipient address has invalid > format (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" 553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed (e.g., mailbox syntax incorrect) > #define CHKUSER_RCPTMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for rcpt > domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) > #define CHKUSER_SENDERFORMAT_STRING "571 sorry, sender address has invalid > format (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) > #define CHKUSER_SENDERMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for > sender domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) > #define CHKUSER_INTRUSIONTHRESHOLD_STRING "571 sorry, you are violating our > security policies (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n" 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) > #define CHKUSER_NORELAY_STRING "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of > allowed rcpthosts (#5.5.3 - chkuser)\r\n" 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons) IMHO -- Cris, member of G.U.F.I Italian FreeBSD User Group http://www.gufi.org/
Re: [vchkpw] 551 response to user not found
Alastair, if you give a transient error sender will probably have a definitive error after some days, and until then will be (wrongly) satisfied about the delivery. In this way sender is notified immediately, and may decide the opportune action. Anyway, these strings have been made external (in settings file) to let anyone chose own best behaviours. Tonino At 14.06 15/03/2005, you wrote: tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote: #define CHKUSER_MBXFULL_STRING "522 sorry, recipient mailbox is full (#5.2.2 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_RCPTMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for rcpt domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" #define CHKUSER_SENDERMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for sender domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n" Should these not be temporary 4XX errors? -- Cheers Alastair Battrick www.battrick.org
Re: [vchkpw] using vchkpw with inn 2.4.2
On Mar 15, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Claas Langbehn wrote:
I managed to do write a wrapper in perl:
No need to use a temp file. Here's a function I use to authenticate a
user. It will return the username if it was a good user/pass combo, or
an empty string if not.
my $VPOPMAIL_PATH = '/home/vpopmail/bin/';
my $BINTRUE_PATH = '/bin/true';
sub vchkpw {
my $user = fixemail (shift);
my $pass = shift;
open (CHECK, "|$VPOPMAIL_PATH/vchkpw $BINTRUE_PATH 3<&0") or
return "";
print CHECK "$user\0$pass\0";
close (CHECK);
return ($? >> 8 ? "" : $user);
}
--
Tom Collins - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/
You don't need a laptop to troubleshoot high-speed Internet:
sniffter.com
