[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unresolved: "Malformed recipient privilege data!"
> > You get lots of output (log it somehow), and among it is
> > the malformed routing result. Knowing the particular one,
> > and the address and its processing which did lead to it,
> > will tell us more about what is really wrong.
> Ok, I've collected what I could and put it up for people to examine at
> It seems that the initial reading of the recipient address gets the
> invalid privilege data (the code looks like it expects privilege to be
> between 0 and 9 in the function where this message comes from, prctladdr),
> and this is never changed. Is it supposed to get changed to a valid value
> later, or should it have been valid when it was first set? The address
> gets processed into its correct form and recognized as local, but it still
> aborts the routing when it writes out the specification for transport.
I think the code does not like the UID of NOBODY being '-2',
and therefore complains of it...
See router/rfc822.c around line 2395.
Care to rewrite that so that it accepts any numeric value,
including negative ones ? (And rejects non-decimal / non-numeric
inputs, e.g. if that component string trails with non-numeric
chars it should barf..)
> g1=(privilege -2 type recipient DSN ORCPT=rfc822;xethair@canticle)
> Also, with rtrace on and the -x flag passed to zmsh, the output has a
> huge number of "too many newlines (LFs) in field" messages, which
> aren't there without the -x flag. I don't know what that would mean or be
> from. There is a real error, though:
Yeah, I know of it, but haven't fixed it.
This system is full of surprising IO redirections where this kind
of debugging things sometimes intermix with sub-function outputs,
they become expanded, and then kaboom...
> [ + otherservers canticle + return (return 1) <0> ]
> [: unknown operand '1)'
> [: syntax error at: <0>
> [: syntax error at:
> echo canticle.concordant-thought.com
> return (return 0) <0>
> tmp='+ deliver canticle
> But this happened when processing the sender's address, too, so it
> shouldn't be the cause of my problem, should it?
> Hope this is useful,
> Robert Braddock
/Matti Aarnio <email@example.com>