Message-id parsing by sieve

[Aki Tuomi]

On 18.2.2020 18.12, Russell King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using Dovecot for my mail with pigeonhole's sieve extension,
> from debian stable (2.3.4.1 (f79e8e7e4)).
>
> One of the sieve stanzas that I use is for duplicate elimination:
>
> if duplicate
> {
>         discard;
>         stop;
> }
>
> This mostly works fine, but I seem to have trouble with some messages
> that come from certain domains where duplicates are not eliminated.
>
> From /var/log/mail.log, I see:
>
> Feb 18 12:48:50 mail dovecot: lmtp(24320:linux at xxx.armlinux.org.uk): sieve: msgid=? <VI1PR04MB513558BF77192255CBE12102B0110 at VI1PR04MB5135.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>: stored mail into mailbox 'INBOX'
> Feb 18 12:49:42 mail dovecot: lmtp(24320:linux at xxx.armlinux.org.uk): sieve: msgid=<VI1PR04MB513558BF77192255CBE12102B0110 at VI1PR04MB5135.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>: stored mail into mailbox 'INBOX'
>
> The first was received direct from the recipient with a message-id
> line formatted thusly:
>
> Message-ID:
>  <VI1PR04MB513558BF77192255CBE12102B0110 at VI1PR04MB5135.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
>
> The second was received from the mailing list with a message-id line
> formatted thusly:
>
> Message-ID: <VI1PR04MB513558BF77192255CBE12102B0110 at VI1PR04MB5135.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
>
> It would appear that the parsed message-id value that dovecot uses
> includes white-space (including newline characters).
>
> RFC5322 gives the message-id header format as:
>
>     message-id      =   "Message-ID:" msg-id CRLF
>     msg-id          =   [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS]
>
> It goes on to say:
>
>     The message identifier (msg-id) itself MUST be a globally unique
>     identifier for a message.
>
> and:
>
>     Semantically, the angle bracket characters are not part of the
>     msg-id; the msg-id is what is contained between the two angle bracket
>     characters.
>
> However, it seems dovecot sieve is using the entire content of the
> msg-id, including CFWS, as the message id used for detecting duplicate
> messages. This seems wrong, and appears to lead to duplicates not
> being detected, and thus seems like a bug.
>
> Is there a workaround for this, and/or can it be changed?
>

Hi!

Thanks for taking time to report this, it appears this is an bug. We are
tracking it as DOP-1697.

Aki