Routing: match address with a dot never matches

[scgtrp]

I have a domain with symbolic subaddressing enabled and a catchall routing rule forwarding to my main inbox.

I tried creating an exact-address routing rule with a . in the address. Email to this address continued to hit my catchall rule and was forwarded to my main inbox. Removing the . made it work correctly.

I assume the internals look like if (symbolic subaddressing) { address = address.replace('.', '') } then does address match any of these routing rules?; if so, perhaps the easy good-enough fix is to just not allow using . and + in routing rule addresses?

[ScottPeterJohnson]

Yea, the symbolic subaddressing applies first before routing rules. Given how often people run into this, I definitely need at least a warning when you try it.

On October 5, 2023 4:41:03 PM PDT, Emily Ellis @.***> wrote:

I have a domain with symbolic subaddressing enabled and a catchall routing rule forwarding to my main inbox.

I tried creating an exact-address routing rule with a . in the address. Email to this address continued to hit my catchall rule and was forwarded to my main inbox. Removing the . made it work correctly.

I assume the internals look like if (symbolic subaddressing) { address = address.replace('.', '') } then does address match any of these routing rules?"; if so, perhaps the easy good-enough fix is to just not allow using . and + in routing rule addresses?

-- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/ScottPeterJohnson/purelymail-issues/issues/183 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: @.***> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.