Aggressive LMTP header cleanup #816
+23
−3
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,3 +1,23 @@ | ||
| # List of headers for incoming messages | ||
| # that must be retained for functionality and compatibility reasons | ||
| /^From:/ DUNNO | ||
| /^Message-Id:/ DUNNO | ||
| /^Chat-/ DUNNO | ||
| /^Content-Type:/ DUNNO | ||
|
|
||
| # For receiving clear-text messages (still supported in May 2026) | ||
| /^Subject:/ DUNNO | ||
| /^Date:/ DUNNO | ||
|
feld marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||
| /^To:/ DUNNO | ||
| /^CC:/ DUNNO | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Are these checks case-sensitive? Is
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. yes, header comparisons are generally case-insensitive, and postfix defaults to case-insensitive. you have to do something special like "/^xal:/i DUNNO" if you want to have case sensitive IIRC. |
||
| /^References:/ DUNNO | ||
| /^In-Reply-To:/ DUNNO | ||
|
|
||
| # Senders might support Autocrypt 1 but not RFC9788 (Header Protection) | ||
| /^Autocrypt:/ DUNNO | ||
|
|
||
| # SecureJoin V2 protocol headers (for backward compatibility) | ||
| /^Secure-Join/ DUNNO | ||
|
|
||
| # Ignore all other headers | ||
| /.*/ IGNORE | ||
|
feld marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not only for cleartext, but any incoming encrypted messages that don't have header protection for these headers.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, maybe best if you suggest a wording?
sidenote: ultimately, end-to-end encryption should require header protection, and anything else is roughly considered cleartext, as are messages today that are only encrypted and not signed. we don't need to cargo-carry forward some Autocrypt L1 scope from 8 years ago.