| msg47187 - (view) |
Author: Mark D. Roth (mdr0) |
Date: 2004-10-30 17:55 |
| A new module that provides an SMTP server base class, derived from the SocketServer class. The class in this module does not implement a fully functional SMTP server; it simply provides a framework that subclasses can use to build their own special-purpose SMTP servers. |
|
|
| msg47188 - (view) |
Author: Just van Rossum (jvr) *  |
Date: 2004-11-06 07:40 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=92689 1) If you're contributing code, it should follow the style guide (PEP 8) 2) How does this work relate to smtpd.py? |
|
|
| msg47189 - (view) |
Author: Josiah Carlson (josiahcarlson) * |
Date: 2004-11-06 09:19 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=341410 1) Agreed completely. 2) smtpd.py is written using the asynchat/asyncore framework. This uses the single/multi-threaded/forked SocketServer.TCPServer framework (various protocols have both an asynchronous and synchronous version in the standard library). Other comments: 3) I also think documentation for this module is necessary, as is a 3rd party review of the code and error messages. 4) SSL/TLS support should also be included, along with a reasonable assortment of EHLO, HELP, etc., though smtpd also should gain such support, so this is not a deal-breaker. 5) Perhaps smtpd should gain allow_sender() and allow_recipient() methods, and both should gain allow_host()*. *proper implementations of the above 3 allow_(sender|recipient |
host) methods (with either framework) would be sufficient to do temporary hostname blacklisting on remote hosts trying to brute-force a local account listing. |
|
| msg47190 - (view) |
Author: Just van Rossum (jvr) * |
Date: 2004-11-06 09:43 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=92689 I just wanted to check whether the author _knows_ smtpd.py, since he doesn't mention it. Maybe I should put it more bluntly: What's the benefit of having an incompatible, less featureful, threaded version of smtpd.py in the library? |
|
|
| msg47191 - (view) |
Author: Mark D. Roth (mdr0) |
Date: 2004-11-07 07:11 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=994239 Yes, I am aware of smtpd.py. My understanding is (although please correct me if I'm wrong) that the asyncore/asynchat framework will not be able to service network clients if the found_terminator() method performs an operation that blocks. The BaseSMTPServer class doesn't suffer from that problem, because it's threaded. If you're interested in integrating this module, I'd be happy to clean it up to conform with the Python style guidelines, add documentation, and implement the allow_host() method. |
|
|
| msg47192 - (view) |
Author: Josiah Carlson (josiahcarlson) * |
Date: 2004-11-07 22:11 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=341410 Re: features Aside from NOOP (which is easily added), the provided BaseSMTPServer seems to offer the same amount of functionality as smtpd (ignoring DebuggingServer, PureProxy and MailmanProxy, which are trivially borrowed from smtpd). Re: What's the benefit... Someone who wanted to use a synchronous SMTP server would have one available. I think that we should probably wait until the original author answers how this relates to smtpd.py, and perhaps decide then. |
|
|
| msg47193 - (view) |
Author: Josiah Carlson (josiahcarlson) * |
Date: 2004-11-07 22:20 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=341410 Hrm, nevemind, I just noticed mdr0's post. I'll leave the rest up to someone who has the authority to make decisions. |
|
|
| msg47194 - (view) |
Author: Mark D. Roth (mdr0) |
Date: 2004-11-10 06:40 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=994239 Here's a new version of BaseSMTPServer with the following changes: * Added lots of documentation. * Changed code style to conform with PEP 8. * Added allow_host() method. * Added smtp_NOOP() method. * Improved interface to process_message() and access-control methods. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! |
|
|
| msg47195 - (view) |
Author: Josiah Carlson (josiahcarlson) * |
Date: 2004-11-10 07:36 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=341410 It still has a couple tabs, but I don't believe that is a big deal. I think it fits in with the standard SocketServer framework, and that it would make sense to add it, but I don't have any authority to make decisions. |
|
|
| msg47196 - (view) |
Author: Jean-Paul Calderone (exarkun) *  |
Date: 2004-12-18 20:08 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=366566 Regarding blocking process_message implementations: there really is no issue here. If a blocking operation needs to be performed, then a thread can be created inside process_message. Nothing is gained by starting a thread any earlier than this. Arguably, it is even a loss since it is more computationally and resource intensive to do so. Support for blocking message processing therefore does not seem to be sufficient reason for including this module. Are there other advantages? |
|
|
| msg47197 - (view) |
Author: Mark D. Roth (mdr0) |
Date: 2005-01-12 04:50 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=994239 Sorry for the delayed response; I've been out of town for a while. I understand the point about being able to create threads as needed using asynchat/asyncore. However, if there is no advantage to using the SocketServer framework, why is it there? Is it just for backward compatibility? There are a number of modules in the standard library that use the SocketServer framework. Is an effort being made to rewrite all of them to use asynchat/asyncore? Or are these modules simply grandfathered in, even though no new SocketServer modules are being accepted? In any case, for anyone that might be interested, here's a new version of BaseSMTPServer with the following changes: * Fixed a few incorrect SMTP reply codes. * Imrproved EOF handling. Please let me know what you thinlk. Thanks! |
|
|
| msg47198 - (view) |
Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * |
Date: 2006-10-27 23:58 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=21627 I think this code can be added to the standard library. Can somebody please provide documentation changes, and also a test suite (as far as reasonable)? Also, Mark: Are you willing to sign a contributor form, at http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ |
|
|
| msg47199 - (view) |
Author: Neal Norwitz (nnorwitz) * |
Date: 2006-10-28 02:26 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=33168 If Mark is a Google employee and Google has rights to this code, it would be covered under the existing Google contrib agreement. |
|
|
| msg47200 - (view) |
Author: Jean-Paul Calderone (exarkun) * |
Date: 2006-10-28 03:41 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=366566 The code in smtp_DATA isn't factored to allow subclasses to limit the amount of data received. As is, the server is vulnerable to a memory exhaustion attack, since it doesn't implement any kind of limit on the number of lines buffered in memory. It should at least provide a hook for this, even if it still doesn't enforce any limits. |
|
|
| msg114389 - (view) |
Author: Mark Lawrence (BreamoreBoy) * |
Date: 2010-08-19 18:18 |
| I can't see this being accepted as it's not had public exposure, at least not that I'm aware of. Other opinions welcomed. |
|
|
| msg114748 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2010-08-23 22:19 |
| I agree with opinions expressed by Jean-Paul in . I see no real gain in providing a smptd.py clone which provides no other new difference other than using threads instead of a non-blocking approach. |
|
|