6.0.0-beta1
7/10/25

[#3502] procmail forwarding may cause mail loops
Summary procmail forwarding may cause mail loops
Queue Ingo
Queue Version 1.0.2
Type Enhancement
State Resolved
Priority 2. Medium
Owners Horde Developers (at) , jan (at) horde (dot) org
Requester joshkel (at) gmail (dot) com
Created 02/17/2006 (7083 days ago)
Due
Updated 05/23/2006 (6988 days ago)
Assigned 05/23/2006 (6988 days ago)
Resolved 05/23/2006 (6988 days ago)
Milestone
Patch Yes

History
05/23/2006 07:22:47 PM Chuck Hagenbuch Comment #14
State ⇒ Resolved
Reply to this comment
Committed, thanks!
05/23/2006 07:19:49 PM Chuck Hagenbuch Deleted Original Message
 
05/23/2006 07:19:37 PM Chuck Hagenbuch Deleted Original Message
 
05/23/2006 03:49:45 PM Jan Schneider Comment #13
State ⇒ Assigned
Priority ⇒ 2. Medium
Reply to this comment
Perfect.
05/23/2006 03:31:43 PM joshkel (at) gmail (dot) com Comment #12
New Attachment: vacation_loop.patch Download
Reply to this comment
Here's the patch, finally.  Is this format okay?



Sorry it took me so long to take care of this.
05/23/2006 04:25:02 AM Chuck Hagenbuch Comment #11 Reply to this comment
Are you going to update the patch?
04/24/2006 12:51:59 PM Jan Schneider Type ⇒ Enhancement
State ⇒ Feedback
Priority ⇒ 1. Low
 
04/18/2006 09:53:51 AM Jan Schneider Comment #10 Reply to this comment
OK, can you please update my version of the patch to include the 
source of the code and the permission to redistribute it in the 
comments?
04/17/2006 09:58:33 PM joshkel (at) gmail (dot) com Comment #9 Reply to this comment
We received permission, so it should be okay to proceed with the 
current patch.  From further discussion by mail:



From: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>

To: Josh Kelley <joshkel@gmail.com>

Date: Apr 17, 2006 9:49 AM

Subject: Re: Licensing question - sharing Apache and GPL code 
(pm-lib/Ingo/Horde)



| On 4/4/06, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> wrote:

| > The licensing issues are complex matter and I would rather suggest to

| > make an informed decision:

| >

| > -  practical; just take the code and quote me

| >    in the project files: "The Ingo project

| >    has the permission to use Procmail Library code

| >    under Apache licence v 1.x or any later version.

| >    Permission obtained 2006-04-04 from Author Jari Aalto."

|

| Since the Horde developers have said that they prefer this approach,

| is it okay if we proceed with it?

|

| Thank you for all of your time spent on this.



Sure, please go ahead,



Jari
04/12/2006 10:30:13 PM Jan Schneider Comment #8 Reply to this comment
From further discussion by mail:



Hi Josh, Jari,



Zitat von Josh Kelley <joshkel@gmail.com>:

[Show Quoted Text - 62 lines]
This seems like the easiest way to go. We are talking about less then 
ten lines of procmail recipe code (iirc) which is not really rocket 
science. This would of course be a completely different story if we 
were about to include large parts of, or the complete pm-lib.

And it's similar to how we did handle inclusion of other third party 
code or algorithms with written permission by the author.
I can pgp sign the wording as needed. You can also suggest wording
that we can agree on.

-  Long route; take the issue to the development team
    (upstream; Ingo, Horde devel) and have a discussion to
    persuate them to move to Apache 2.x licence or have them
    add wording "Apache 1.x lincence or at your option
    any later version" as GPL does.
This seems impratical. I'm not sure if this an issue of GPL only or 
with any licence like ASL here. But since contributors don't 
explicitely hand the copyright over to the Horde Project (which 
doesn't exist as a legal entity anyway), we probably can't simply 
change the licence without the permission of each single contributor.



Jan.
03/31/2006 03:22:52 PM Jan Schneider Comment #7
New Attachment: vacation_loop.diff
Reply to this comment
It's even worse because Ingo is under the Apache license. Yes, please 
ask the author or find a different solution.

Attached is my cleaned up version of you patch with several coding 
standards fixes. Please continue from there.
03/31/2006 03:14:59 PM joshkel (at) gmail (dot) com Comment #6 Reply to this comment
The comments say "Code taken from pm-lib.sourceforge.net." What
exactly does this mean?
I needed the "from" address, to pass as the -f option to sendmail.   
pm-lib.sourceforge.net contains a procmail snippet for determining the 
from address without making an extra call to formail, so I used it.   
(This makes up the 13 lines or so of code that set OUTPUT.)  I just 
realized that pm-lib is GPL'ed and Horde is LGPL'ed, so maybe it 
wasn't appropriate to do this; if you'd like me to rework the patch or 
contact pm-lib's author for permission, please let me know.  (Sorry, 
I'm not very familiar with the process for including code snippets 
from one open source project in another.)
03/30/2006 09:49:02 PM Jan Schneider Comment #5
Assigned to Jan Schneider
Taken from ben
State ⇒ Feedback
Reply to this comment
The comments say "Code taken from pm-lib.sourceforge.net." What 
exactly does this mean?
03/30/2006 07:25:32 PM Chuck Hagenbuch Assigned to Horde DevelopersHorde Developers
 
03/30/2006 02:28:18 PM ben Comment #4 Reply to this comment
Looks good to me.
03/30/2006 09:18:28 AM komanek (at) natur (dot) cuni (dot) cz Comment #3 Reply to this comment
I am using it for a few weeks with no problems, at least I have no 
more message looping since I patched with this, so thanks a lot for 
this patch and I vote to make it a part of official code.
03/28/2006 03:44:16 PM Jan Schneider Comment #2 Reply to this comment
Ben, if you have the time to take a quick look at the patch, I can 
take care of committing it.
02/17/2006 05:00:12 PM Jan Schneider Assigned to ben
State ⇒ Assigned
 
02/17/2006 04:57:06 AM joshkel (at) gmail (dot) com Comment #1
Priority ⇒ 2. Medium
State ⇒ Unconfirmed
New Attachment: ingo-forwards.patch
Queue ⇒ Ingo
Summary ⇒ procmail forwarding may cause mail loops
Type ⇒ Bug
Reply to this comment
Procmail forwarding recipes created by Ingo contain no protecting 
against mail loops if the forwarded-to address is bad or if it 
forwards back to this address.  The attached patch should fix the 
problem.



The patch still has one bug, described in the comments.



I'm no procmail expert, but we've been running this patch for a few 
months with no complaints.

Saved Queries