-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 685
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SMTP Protocol Support #1201
SMTP Protocol Support #1201
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #1201 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.48% 82.64% +0.15%
==========================================
Files 161 163 +2
Lines 20770 20962 +192
Branches 7847 7962 +115
==========================================
+ Hits 17133 17324 +191
- Misses 2961 2964 +3
+ Partials 676 674 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
This reverts commit 2915fa8.
@seladb I'll double check parsing with different SMTP packets but it's ready for review. |
@egecetin I think I understand now. But if the TCP port is SMTP (25 or 587) and the packet ends with |
Probably nothing we can do instead of checking of the session (at least i dont know) |
@seladb I saw your comments but still don't have time to fix them. I try to fix your comments and update the PR as soon as possible for protocol type changes. Sorry for the delay |
@seladb It's ready for review. You can check the PR when you have time |
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.
Please take a look at one comment below. I'm ok to merge this PR without it
"xc90.websitewelcome.com ESMTP Exim 4.69 #1 Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:05:54 -0500 220-We do not authorize " | ||
"the use of this system to transport unsolicited, 220 and/or bulk e-mail."); |
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.
In case of multiline, do we want to remove the status code from all the lines?
Meaning, remove 220-
from the second and third lines?
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.
I remember I also thought about it but to be honest I can't remember why I don't add any support for it. Let me check the code and protocol again before merging.
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.
@seladb Updated the code for support it in both SMTP and FTP (They use same structure for it) but codecov-action currently broken because of node version (Check codecov/codecov-action#1230 and codecov/codecov-action#1228) so workflow is failing for now. Can you check the code again?
vDelim.push_back(getCommandInternal() + "-"); | ||
vDelim.push_back(getCommandInternal() + " "); |
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.
nit: we could run getCommandInternal()
only once and create + init the vector in one line:
auto option = getCommandInternal();
auto vDelim = std::vector<std::string> { option + " ", option + "-"}
No description provided.