Discussion:
Off-Topic: research on RCPT TO's ORCPT extension
(too old to reply)
Derek Diget
2010-01-12 22:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Our Groupwise environment was upgraded to Groupwise 8 SP 1 just before
the holidays. I was trouble shooting something else today and noticed
that e-mail leaving that environment appears to be doing more with DSN
requests than in the past.

The slave log of a message being sent from our Groupwise environment
looks like the following:

15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-mailgw.wmich.edu"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-8BITMIME"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-PIPELINING"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-DSN"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-HELP"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-XLOOP DCB91C603B54AE5A596AC8D1B2CB6254"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-STARTTLS"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-ETRN"
15:18:59.60: Received : "MAIL FROM:<first.last-PheikujVRdqHXe+***@public.gmane.org> SIZE=29879 RET=HDRS ENVID=groupwise.4B4C92E0.2B2:c0:2b23:N"
15:18:59.61: Sending : "250 2.5.0 Address and options OK."
15:18:59.61: Received : "RCPT TO:<c2kazoo-***@public.gmane.org> NOTIFY=SUCCESS,FAILURE ORCPT=rfc822;groupwise-lastf-***@public.gmane.org;1:1"
15:18:59.62: Sending : "250 2.1.5 c2kazoo-***@public.gmane.org and options OK."
15:18:59.62: Received : "DATA"
15:18:59.62: Sending : "354 Enter mail, end with a single "."."

Is it me or is the RCPT TO's ORCPT wrong? Username "lastf"
(first.last-PheikujVRdqHXe+***@public.gmane.org) on Groupwise is _sending_ the message to c2kazoo.
How can they be the original recipient?

I am going to start following the RFC rabbit hole to find what the
syntax should be, but knowing members of this list I thought I would do
some parallel processing and see if I can get their opinion.


Thanks.
--
***********************************************************************
Derek Diget Office of Information Technology
Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo Michigan USA - www.wmich.edu/
***********************************************************************
Kristin Hubner
2010-01-13 20:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Here's what RFC 1891 says (nowadays obsoleted by RFC 3461, but on this
topic I think
they say much the same thing):
-------
5.2 The ORCPT parameter to the ESMTP RCPT command
The ORCPT esmtp-keyword of the RCPT command is used to specify an
"original" recipient address that corresponds to the actual recipient
to which the message is to be delivered. If the ORCPT esmtp-keyword is
used, it MUST have an associated esmtp-value, which consists of the
original recipient address, encoded according to the rules below. The
ABNF for the ORCPT parameter is:
orcpt-parameter = "ORCPT=" original-recipient-address
original-recipient-address = addr-type ";" xtext
addr-type = atom
The "addr-type" portion MUST be an IANA-registered electronic mail
address-type (as defined in [5]), while the "xtext" portion contains
an encoded representation of the original recipient address using the
rules in section 5 of this document. The entire ORCPT parameter MAY be
up to 500 characters in length.
When initially submitting a message via SMTP, if the ORCPT parameter
is used, it MUST contain the same address as the RCPT TO address
(unlike the RCPT TO address, the ORCPT parameter will be encoded as
xtext). Likewise, when a mailing list submits a message via SMTP to be
distributed to the list subscribers, if ORCPT is used, the ORCPT
parameter MUST match the new RCPT TO address of each recipient, not
the address specified by the original sender of the message.)
The "addr-type" portion of the original-recipient-address is used to
indicate the "type" of the address which appears in the ORCPT
parameter value. However, the address associated with the ORCPT
keyword is NOT constrained to conform to the syntax rules for that
"addr-type".
Ideally, the "xtext" portion of the original-recipient-address should
contain, in encoded form, the same sequence of characters that the
sender used to specify the recipient. However, for a message gatewayed
from an environment (such as X.400) in which a recipient address is
not a simple string of printable characters, the representation of
recipient address must be defined by a specification for gatewaying
between DSNs and that environment.
-------

Note those extra markings on the end of the ORCPT parameter:

ORCPT=rfc822;groupwise-lastf-***@public.gmane.org;1:1
^^^^

that aren't part of a normal RFC 822 address. I would wonder if the
Groupwise
user used something like a personal addressbook entry, or "personal
alias" sort of thing
when composing their message -- and then whether that extra ";1:1" is
some sort
of pointer into that Groupwise personal addressbook/personal alias
database/whatever.

If that same Groupwise user "lastf" sends to other recipients, do
different numbers get
suffixed on the end, or is it always ";1:1"? If it's always ";1:1"
regardless, then I'd
suspect that Groupwise is not correctly composing the ORCPT in what it
sends. But if there
is variation in those numbers, then I would suspect that Groupwise is
trying to refer back
to some Groupwise-internal addressbook/alias sort of thing.

Regards,

Kristin
Post by Derek Diget
Our Groupwise environment was upgraded to Groupwise 8 SP 1 just
before the holidays. I was trouble shooting something else today
and noticed that e-mail leaving that environment appears to be doing
more with DSN requests than in the past.
The slave log of a message being sent from our Groupwise environment
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-mailgw.wmich.edu"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-8BITMIME"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-PIPELINING"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-DSN"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-HELP"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-XLOOP DCB91C603B54AE5A596AC8D1B2CB6254"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-STARTTLS"
15:18:59.60: Sending : "250-ETRN"
SIZE=29879 RET=HDRS ENVID=groupwise.4B4C92E0.2B2:c0:2b23:N"
15:18:59.61: Sending : "250 2.5.0 Address and options OK."
;1:1"
OK."
15:18:59.62: Received : "DATA"
15:18:59.62: Sending : "354 Enter mail, end with a single "."."
) on Groupwise is _sending_ the message to c2kazoo. How can they be
the original recipient?
I am going to start following the RFC rabbit hole to find what the
syntax should be, but knowing members of this list I thought I would
do some parallel processing and see if I can get their opinion.
Thanks.
--
***********************************************************************
Derek Diget Office of Information
Technology
Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo Michigan USA -
www.wmich.edu/
***********************************************************************
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...