OpenSSL: track shutdown calls. Bug 2864

[exim.git] / src / src / routers / rf_get_errors_address.c

diff --git a/src/src/routers/rf_get_errors_address.c b/src/src/routers/rf_get_errors_address.c
index e0eb0f0269cad26db65ae247d4e26cea03d69cd9..b9cf78124b25b11fb683bc106350478a0c327db5 100644 (file)
--- a/src/src/routers/rf_get_errors_address.c
+++ b/src/src/routers/rf_get_errors_address.c
@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@
-/* $Cambridge: exim/src/src/routers/rf_get_errors_address.c,v 1.4 2005/09/12 15:09:55 ph10 Exp $ */
-
 /*************************************************
 *     Exim - an Internet mail transport agent    *
 *************************************************/
 
-/* Copyright (c) University of Cambridge 1995 - 2005 */
+/* Copyright (c) University of Cambridge 1995 - 2018 */
+/* Copyright (c) The Exim Maintainers 2020 */
 /* See the file NOTICE for conditions of use and distribution. */
 
 #include "../exim.h"
@@ -40,14 +39,14 @@ rf_get_errors_address(address_item *addr, router_instance *rblock,
 {
 uschar *s;
 
-*errors_to = addr->p.errors_address;
+*errors_to = addr->prop.errors_address;
 if (rblock->errors_to == NULL) return OK;
 
 s = expand_string(rblock->errors_to);
 
 if (s == NULL)
   {
-  if (expand_string_forcedfail)
+  if (f.expand_string_forcedfail)
     {
     DEBUG(D_route)
       debug_printf("forced expansion failure - ignoring errors_to\n");
@@ -62,7 +61,7 @@ if (s == NULL)
 
 if (*s == 0)
   {
-  setflag(addr, af_ignore_error);      /* For locally detected errors */
+  addr->prop.ignore_error = TRUE;   /* For locally detected errors */
   *errors_to = US"";                   /* Return path for SMTP */
   return OK;
   }
@@ -83,35 +82,48 @@ if (verify != v_none)
   }
 else
   {
-  BOOL save_address_test_mode = address_test_mode;
+  BOOL save_address_test_mode = f.address_test_mode;
   int save1 = 0;
   int i;
-  uschar ***p;
-  uschar *address_expansions_save[ADDRESS_EXPANSIONS_COUNT];
+  const uschar ***p;
+  const uschar *address_expansions_save[ADDRESS_EXPANSIONS_COUNT];
   address_item *snew = deliver_make_addr(s, FALSE);
 
-  if (sender_address != NULL)
+  if (sender_address)
     {
     save1 = sender_address[0];
     sender_address[0] = 0;
     }
 
-  for (i = 0, p = address_expansions; *p != NULL;)
+  for (i = 0, p = address_expansions; *p;)
     address_expansions_save[i++] = **p++;
-  address_test_mode = FALSE;
+  f.address_test_mode = FALSE;
+
+  /* NOTE: the address is verified as a recipient, not a sender. This is
+  perhaps confusing. It isn't immediately obvious what to do: we want to have
+  some confidence that we can deliver to the address, in which case it will be
+  a recipient, but on the other hand, it will be passed on in SMTP deliveries
+  as a sender. However, I think on balance recipient is right because sender
+  verification is really about the *incoming* sender of the message.
+
+  If this code is changed, note that you must set vopt_fake_sender instead of
+  vopt_is_recipient, as otherwise sender_address may be altered because
+  verify_address() thinks it is dealing with *the* sender of the message. */
 
   DEBUG(D_route|D_verify)
     debug_printf("------ Verifying errors address %s ------\n", s);
-  if (verify_address(snew, NULL, vopt_is_recipient | vopt_qualify, -1, -1, -1,
-    NULL, NULL, NULL) == OK) *errors_to = snew->address;
+  if (verify_address(snew, NULL,
+      vopt_is_recipient /* vopt_fake_sender is the alternative */
+      | vopt_qualify, -1, -1, -1, NULL, NULL, NULL) == OK)
+    *errors_to = snew->address;
   DEBUG(D_route|D_verify)
     debug_printf("------ End verifying errors address %s ------\n", s);
 
-  address_test_mode = save_address_test_mode;
-  for (i = 0, p = address_expansions; *p != NULL;)
+  f.address_test_mode = save_address_test_mode;
+  for (i = 0, p = address_expansions; *p; )
     **p++ = address_expansions_save[i++];
 
-  if (sender_address != NULL) sender_address[0] = save1;
+  if (sender_address) sender_address[0] = save1;
   }
 
 return OK;