Jcbf/fix reply code

[jcbf]

Fix issues identified in #33 by @gwharton.

• Fix correct reply code on reject
• Use SMFIS_TEMPFAIL for TempFail

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-2.5%) to 78.672% when pulling ba30aa5 on jcbf/fix_reply_code into 40dd600 on master.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #34 into master will decrease coverage by 2.56%.
The diff coverage is 24%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #34      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.18%   78.61%   -2.57%     
==========================================
  Files           1        1              
  Lines         473      491      +18     
  Branches      161      166       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits          384      386       +2     
- Misses         89      105      +16

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
smf-spf.c	78.61% <24%> (-2.57%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 40dd600...df9f6f1. Read the comment docs.

[gwharton]

Looking good, I understand what the SoftFail feature does now. Perhaps SoftFail is not the best name to choose in relation to this feature, as an SPF SoftFail is defined as Accept Message and Tag as domain is transitioning as indicated by the presence of the ~all tag in the domains SPF record.

I understand it is there now as it is, so difficult to change, so perhaps some words in the documentation or config file to explain that by setting SoftFail to on in the config will result in the SPF Failed mails being rejected with a temporary fail status, where the correct response to this from the sending MTA is to defer and try delivery again later.

I've just done a quick scan of the code for other such issues and I have a possible bug, so hang fire on the merge. I'll post more shortly.

[gwharton]

smf-spf/smf-spf.c

Lines 796 to 805 in ba30aa5

	if (status == SPF_RESULT_TEMPERROR && !conf.accept_temperror) {
	char reject[2 * MAXLINE];
	snprintf(reject, sizeof(reject), "Found a problem processing SFP for %s. Error: %s", context->sender, SPF_strreason(spf_response->reason));
	if (spf_response) SPF_response_free(spf_response);
	if (spf_request) SPF_request_free(spf_request);
	if (spf_server) SPF_server_free(spf_server);
	smfi_setreply(ctx, "451" , "4.4.3", reject);
	return SMFIS_REJECT;
	}

Here's another one. In this case we are in a TEMPERROR situation, we set the correct 4.x.x/4xx temp failure codes, but then SMFIS_REJECT instead of TEMPFAILing.

That's the only one i could spot.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-2.5%) to 78.672% when pulling df9f6f1 on jcbf/fix_reply_code into 40dd600 on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-2.5%) to 78.672% when pulling df9f6f1 on jcbf/fix_reply_code into 40dd600 on master.

[jcbf]

I'm pushing this changes to a new release.

[gwharton]

Many thanks.

Graham