-$Cambridge: exim/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog,v 1.94 2005/03/22 14:11:54 ph10 Exp $
+$Cambridge: exim/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog,v 1.95 2005/03/22 14:50:10 ph10 Exp $
Change log file for Exim from version 4.21
-------------------------------------------
PH/09 Previously, an attempt to use ${perl when it wasn't compiled gave an
"unknown" error; now it says that the functionality isn't in the binary.
+PH/10 Added a nasty fudge to try to recognize and flatten LDAP passwords in
+ an address' error message when a string expansion fails (syntax or
+ whatever). Otherwise not only does the password appear in the log, it may
+ also be put in a bounce message.
+
A note about Exim versions 4.44 and 4.50
----------------------------------------
-/* $Cambridge: exim/src/src/deliver.c,v 1.8 2005/03/15 12:27:54 ph10 Exp $ */
+/* $Cambridge: exim/src/src/deliver.c,v 1.9 2005/03/22 14:50:10 ph10 Exp $ */
/*************************************************
* Exim - an Internet mail transport agent *
/* If there's an error message set, ensure that it contains only printing
characters - it should, but occasionally things slip in and this at least
-stops the log format from getting wrecked. */
+stops the log format from getting wrecked. We also scan the message for an LDAP
+expansion item that has a password setting, and flatten the password. This is a
+fudge, but I don't know a cleaner way of doing this. (If the item is badly
+malformed, it won't ever have gone near LDAP.) */
-if (addr->message != NULL) addr->message = string_printing(addr->message);
+if (addr->message != NULL)
+ {
+ addr->message = string_printing(addr->message);
+ if (Ustrstr(addr->message, "failed to expand") != NULL &&
+ (Ustrstr(addr->message, "ldap:") != NULL ||
+ Ustrstr(addr->message, "ldapdn:") != NULL ||
+ Ustrstr(addr->message, "ldapm:") != NULL))
+ {
+ uschar *p = Ustrstr(addr->message, "pass=");
+ if (p != NULL)
+ {
+ p += 5;
+ while (*p != 0 && !isspace(*p)) *p++ = 'x';
+ }
+ }
+ }
/* If we used a transport that has one of the "return_output" options set, and
if it did in fact generate some output, then for return_output we treat the