Summary: Depends on D19956. Ref T920. Move the TestAdapter to the new API and adjust a couple of tests for the changes.
Test Plan: All tests now pass.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19957
Summary:
Depends on D19952. Ref T13222. Never process mail targets if they match:
- The "default" address which we send mail "From".
- The "void" address which we use as a placholder "To" when we only have "CC" addresses.
- Any address from a list of reserved/administrative names.
The first two prevent loops. The third one prevents abuse.
There's a reasonably well-annotated list of reservations and reasons here:
https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/104811/is-there-any-list-of-email-addresses-reserved-because-of-security-concerns-for-a
Stuff like `support@` seems fine; stuff like `ssladmin@` might let you get SSL certs issued for a domain you don't control.
Also, forbid users from creating application emails with these reserved addresses.
Finally, build the default and void addresses somewhat more cleverly.
Test Plan: Added unit tests, tried to configured reserved addresses, hit the default/void cases manually with `bin/mail receive-test`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: olexiy.myronenko
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19953
Summary:
Fixes T7477. Fixes T13066. Currently, inbound mail is processed by the first receiver that matches any "To:" address. "Cc" addresses are ignored.
**To, CC, and Multiple Receivers**
Some users would like to be able to "Cc" addresses like `bugs@` instead of having to "To" the address, which makes perfect sense. That's the driving use case behind T7477.
Since users can To/Cc multiple "create object" or "update object" addresses, I also wanted to make the behavior more general. For example, if you email `bugs@` and also `paste@`, your mail might reasonably make both a Task and a Paste. Is this useful? I'm not sure. But it seems like it's pretty clearly the best match for user intent, and the least-surprising behavior we can have. There's also no good rule for picking which address "wins" when two or more match -- we ended up with "address order", which is pretty arbitrary since "To" and "Cc" are not really ordered fields.
One part of this change is removing `phabricator.allow-email-users`. In practice, this option only controlled whether users were allowed to send mail to "Application Email" addresses with a configured default author, and it's unlikely that we'll expand it since I think the future of external/grey users is Nuance, not richer interaction with Maniphest/Differential/etc. Since this option only made "Default Author" work and "Default Author" is optional, we can simplify behavior by making the rule work like this:
- If an address specifies a default author, it allows public email.
- If an address does not, it doesn't.
That's basically how it worked already, except that you could intentionally "break" the behavior by not configuring `phabricator.allow-email-users`. This is a backwards compatility change with possible security implications (it might allow email in that was previously blocked by configuration) that I'll call out in the changelog, but I suspect that no installs are really impacted and this new behavior is generally more intuitive.
A somewhat related change here is that each receiver is allowed to react to each individual email address, instead of firing once. This allows you to configure `bugs-a@` and `bugs-b@` and CC them both and get two tasks. Useful? Maybe not, but seems like the best execution of intent.
**Sender vs Author**
Adjacently, T13066 described an improvement to error handling behavior here: we did not distinguish between "sender" (the user matching the email "From" address) and "actor" (the user we're actually acting as in the application). These are different when you're some internet rando and send to `bugs@`, which has a default author. Then the "sender" is `null` and the "author" is `@bugs-robot` or whatever (some user account you've configured).
This refines "Sender" vs "Author". This is mostly a purity/correctness change, but it means that we won't send random email error messages to `@bugs-robot`.
Since receivers are now allowed to process mail with no "sender" if they have some default "actor" they would rather use instead, it's not an error to send from an invalid address unless nothing processes the mail.
**Other**
This removes the "abundant receivers" error since this is no longer an error.
This always sets "external user" mail recipients to be unverified. As far as I can tell, there's no pathway by which we send them email anyway (before or after this change), although it's possible I'm missing something somewhere.
Test Plan:
I did most of this with `bin/mail receive-test`. I rigged the workflow slightly for some of it since it doesn't support multiple addresses or explicit "CC" and adding either would be a bit tricky.
These could also be tested with `scripts/mail/mail_handler.php`, but I don't currently have the MIME parser extension installed locally after a recent upgrade to Mojave and suspect T13232 makes it tricky to install.
- Ran unit tests, which provide significant coverage of this flow.
- Sent mail to multiple Maniphest application emails, got multiple tasks.
- Sent mail to a Maniphest and a Paste application email, got a task and a paste.
- Sent mail to a task.
- Saw original email recorded on tasks. This is a behavior particular to tasks.
- Sent mail to a paste.
- Sent mail to a mock.
- Sent mail to a Phame blog post.
- Sent mail to a Legalpad document.
- Sent mail to a Conpherence thread.
- Sent mail to a poll.
- This isn't every type of supported object but it's enough of them that I'm pretty confident I didn't break the whole flow.
- Sent mail to an object I could not view (got an error).
- As a non-user, sent mail to several "create an object..." addresses.
- Addresses with a default user worked (e.g., created a task).
- Addresses without a default user did not work.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13066, T7477
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19952
Summary:
Ref T7477. The various "create a new X via email" applications (Paste, Differential, Maniphest, etc) all have a bunch of duplicate code.
The inheritance stack here is generally a little weird. Extend these from a shared parent to reduce the number of callsites I need to change when this API is adjusted for T7477.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests. This will get more thorough testing once more pieces are in place.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7477
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19950
Summary:
Ref T7477. This option was added in D842 in 2011, to support a specific narrow use case at Quora with community moderators using some kind of weird Gmail config.
I don't recall it ever coming up since then, and a survey of a subset of hosted instances (see T11760) reveals that no instances are using this option today. Presumably, even Quora has completed the onboarding discussed in D842, if they still use Phabricator. This option generally does not seem very useful outside of very unusual/narrow cases like the one Quora had.
This would be relatively easy to restore as a local patch if installs //do// need it, but I suspect this has no use cases anywhere.
Test Plan: Grepped for option, blame-delved to figure out why we added it in the first place, surveyed instances for usage.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7477
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19949
Summary:
Ref T7477. We have some address normalization code in the reciever stack that is really shared code. I want to introduce some new callsites elsewhere but don't want to put a lot of static calls to other random objects all over the place.
This technically "solves" T7477 (it changes "to" to "to + cc" for finding receivers) but doesn't yet implement proper behavior (with multiple receivers, for example).
Test Plan: Ran unit tests, which cover this pretty well. Additional changes will vet this more thoroughly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7477
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19948
Summary:
Ref T920. Ref T7477. We currently drop empty mail only once it reaches the `ReplyHandler` layer.
I think no plausible receiver can ever do anything useful with this kind of mail, so we can safely drop it earlier and simplify some of the logic. After T7477, we'd end up throwing multiple exceptions if you sent empty mail to several valid receivers.
(I also want to move away from APIs oriented around raw addresses in more specialized layers, and this is one of the few callsites for raw mail address information.)
This requires updating some unit tests to actually have message bodies, since they failed with this error before hitting the other errors otherwise.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail receive-test` to send empty mail, got appropriate "err:empty" out of it.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7477, T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19947
Summary:
Ref T12509.
- Upgrade an old SHA1 to SHA256.
- Replace an old manually configurable HMAC key with an automatically generated one.
This is generally both simpler (less configuration) and more secure (you now get a unique value automatically).
This causes a one-time compatibility break that invalidates old "Reply-To" addresses. I'll note this in the changelog.
If you leaked a bunch of addresses, you could force a change here by mucking around with `phabricator_auth.auth_hmackey`, but AFAIK no one has ever used this value to react to any sort of security issue.
(I'll note the possibility that we might want to provide/document this "manually force HMAC keys to regenerate" stuff some day in T6994.)
Test Plan: Grepped for removed config. I'll vet this pathway more heavily in upcoming changes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19945
Summary:
Ref T13065. `mailKey`s are a private secret for each object. In some mail configurations, they help us ensure that inbound mail is authentic: when we send you mail, the "Reply-To" is "T123+456+abcdef".
- The `T123` is the object you're actually replying to.
- The `456` is your user ID.
- The `abcdef` is a hash of your user account with the `mailKey`.
Knowing this hash effectively proves that Phabricator has sent you mail about the object before, i.e. that you legitimately control the account you're sending from. Without this, anyone could send mail to any object "From" someone else, and have comments post under their username.
To generate this hash, we need a stable secret per object. (We can't use properties like the PHID because the secret has to be legitimately secret.)
Today, we store these in `mailKey` properties on the actual objects, and manually generate them. This results in tons and tons and tons of copies of this same ~10 lines of code.
Instead, just store them in the Mail application and generate them on demand. This change also anticipates possibly adding flags like "must encrypt" and "original subject", which are other "durable metadata about mail transmission" properties we may have use cases for eventually.
Test Plan:
- See next change for additional testing and context.
- Sent mail about Herald rules (next change); saw mail keys generate cleanly.
- Destroyed a Herald rule with a mail key, saw the mail properties get nuked.
- Grepped for `getMailKey()` and converted all callsites I could which aren't the copy/pasted boilerplate present in 50 places.
- Used `bin/mail receive-test --to T123` to test normal mail receipt of older-style objects and make sure that wasn't broken.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13065
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19399
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary: Ref T12509. This encourages code to move away from HMAC+SHA1 by making the method name more obviously undesirable.
Test Plan: `grep`, browsed around.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17632
Summary:
Ref T12237. This tightens our delivery rules, which previously sent normal mail to unverified addresses:
- We sent general mail to unverified addresses so that you wouldn't miss anything between the time you sign up (or have an account created) and the time you verify your address. This was imagined as a slight convenience for users.
- We sent automatic reply mail to unverified addresses if they sent mail to us first, saying "we don't recognize that address". This was imagined as a convenience for users who accidentally send mail "From" the wrong address (personal vs work, for example).
I think both behaviors are probably a little better for users on the balance, but not having mail providers randomly shut us off without warning is better for me, personally -- so stop doing this stuff.
This creates a problem which we likely need to solve before the release is cut:
- On installs which do not require mail verification, mail to you will now mostly-silently be dropped if you never bothered to verify your address.
I'd like to solve this by adding some kind of per-user alert that says "We recently tried to send you some mail but you haven't verified your address.", and giving them links to verify the address and review the mail. I'll pursue this after restoring mail service to `secure.phabricator.com`.
Test Plan:
- Added a unit test.
- Unverified my address, sent mail, saw it get dropped.
- Reverified my address, sent mail, saw it go through.
- Verified that important mail (password reset, invite, confirm-this-address) either uses "Force Delivery" (skips this check) or "Raw To Addresses" (also skips this check).
- Verified that Phacility instance stuff is also covered: it uses the same invite flow.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12237
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17329
Summary:
Fixes T9156.
- Fix hashtag generation.
- Fix various badnesses.
- Improve project name generator.
Test Plan:
```
$ ./bin/lipsum generate projects
GENERATORS Selected generators: Projects.
WARNING This command generates synthetic test data, including user accounts. It is intended for use in development environments so you can test features more easily. There is no easy way to delete this data or undo the effects of this command. If you run it in a production environment, it will pollute your data with large amounts of meaningless garbage that you can not get rid of.
Are you sure you want to generate piles of garbage? [y/N] y
LIPSUM Generating synthetic test objects forever. Use ^C to stop when satisfied.
Generated "Project": Self-Flying Data Center Swag Performance
Generated "Project": Optimize Cars
Generated "Project": Triaging Culture Optimization
Generated "Project": Automating Experience
Generated "Project": Accelerating NUX Performance
Generated "Project": Optimizing Culture Optimization
Generated "Project": Optimize Hardware
```
{F1042949}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9156
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14874
Summary: Via HackerOne. See D14025. I missed this comparison when making the original change.
Test Plan:
- Used `cat mail.txt | scripts/mail/mail_handler.php --process-duplicates` to pipe mail in a whole lot of times.
- Tried bad hashes, saw rejections.
- Tried good hash, saw mail accepted.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14455
Summary: Fixes T9369.
Test Plan:
- Sent a mail with Mail.app to `bugs@local.phacility.com`.
- Used "View Raw Mail", copy-pasted it into `mail.txt` on disk.
- Ran `cat mail.txt | ./scripts/mail/manage_mail.php --process-duplicates`.
- Saw task get created and me get added as CC.
- Changed "To" to include another user, ran command again, saw task get created and other user get added as CC.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9369
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14086
Summary: All classes should extend from some other class. See D13275 for some explanation.
Test Plan: `arc unit`
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13283
Summary:
Fixes T7199. This still isn't a shining example of perfect code, but the raw amount of copy/paste is much lower than it used to be.
- Reduce code duplication between existing receivers.
- Expose receiving objects in help menus where appropriate.
- Connect some "TODO" receivers.
Test Plan:
- Sent mail to every supported object type.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12249
Summary: Fixes T3404 (post D11565), fixes T5952. This infrastructure has been getting deployed against Maniphest and its time to get these other two applications going on it.
Test Plan: created an email address for paste and used `./bin/mail receive-test` ; a paste was successfully created
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5952, T3404
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11570
Summary: Ref T5952. This adds support for a "default author" and deploys it on Maniphest.
Test Plan: used augmented (by this diff) bin/mail receive-test to test creation via an application email with a default author configured and no author specified. a task was created with the author as the default author i configured.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5952
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11446
Summary: Ref T5952, T3404. This lays the basic plumbing for how this will work, all the way to deploying on Maniphest. Aside from what is mentioned on T5952, I think page(s) on editing application emails could use a little more helpful text about what's going on, similar to how the config page that's getting deprecated works.
Test Plan: ran migration and noted my create email address migrated successfully. used bin/mail to make a task. added another email and used bin/mail to make a task. deleted an email. edited an email. invoked various error states and they all looked good.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3404, T5952
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11418
Summary:
Fixes T3732. Ref T1205. Ref T3116.
External accounts (like emails used as identities, Facebook accounts, LDAP accounts, etc.) are stored in "ExternalAccount" objects.
Currently, we have a very restrictive `CAN_VIEW` policy for ExternalAccounts, to add an extra layer of protection to make sure users can't use them in unintended ways. For example, it would be bad if a user could link their Phabricator account to a Facebook account without proper authentication. All of the controllers which do sensitive things have checks anyway, but a restrictive CAN_VIEW provided an extra layer of protection. Se T3116 for some discussion.
However, this means that when grey/external users take actions (via email, or via applications like Legalpad) other users can't load the account handles and can't see anything about the actor (they just see "Restricted External Account" or similar).
Balancing these concerns is mostly about not making a huge mess while doing it. This seems like a reasonable approach:
- Add `CAN_EDIT` on these objects.
- Make that very restricted, but open up `CAN_VIEW`.
- Require `CAN_EDIT` any time we're going to do something authentication/identity related.
This is slightly easier to get wrong (forget CAN_EDIT) than other approaches, but pretty simple, and we always have extra checks in place anyway -- this is just a safety net.
I'm not quite sure how we should identify external accounts, so for now we're just rendering "Email User" or similar -- clearly not a bug, but not identifying. We can figure out what to render in the long term elsewhere.
Test Plan:
- Viewed external accounts.
- Linked an external account.
- Refreshed an external account.
- Edited profile picture.
- Viewed sessions panel.
- Published a bunch of stuff to Asana/JIRA.
- Legalpad signature page now shows external accounts.
{F171595}
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3732, T1205, T3116
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9767
Summary:
Ref T4371. Ref T4699. Fixes T3994.
Currently, we're very conservative about sending errors back to users. A concern I had about this was that mistakes could lead to email loops, massive amounts of email spam, etc. Because of this, I was pretty hesitant about replying to email with more email when I wrote this stuff.
However, this was a long time ago. We now have Message-ID deduplication, "X-Phabricator-Sent-This-Mail", generally better mail infrastructure, and rate limiting. Together, these mechanisms should reasonably prevent anything crazy (primarily, infinite email loops) from happening.
Thus:
- When we hit any processing error after receiving a mail, try to send the author a reply with details about what went wrong. These are limited to 6 per hour per address.
- Rewrite most of the errors to be more detailed and informative.
- Rewrite most of the errors in a user-facing voice ("You sent this mail..." instead of "This mail was sent..").
- Remove the redundant, less sophisticated code which does something similar in Differential.
Test Plan:
- Using `scripts/mail/mail_receiver.php`, artificially received a pile of mail.
- Hit a bunch of different errors.
- Saw reasonable error mail get sent to me.
- Saw other reasonable error mail get rate limited.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3994, T4371, T4699
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8692
Summary:
There are quite a few tests in Arcanist, libphutil and Phabricator that do something similar to `$this->assertEqual(false, ...)` or `$this->assertEqual(true, ...)`.
This is unnecessarily verbose and it would be cleaner if we had `assertFalse` and `assertTrue` methods.
Test Plan: I contemplated adding a unit test for the `getCallerInfo` method but wasn't sure if it was required / where it should live.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8460
Summary: Adds "verified" and "secretKey" to Legalpad document signatures. For logged in users using an email address they own, things are verified right away. Otherwise, the email is sent a verification letter. When the user clicks the link the signature is marked verified.
Test Plan: signed the document with a bogus email address not logged in. verified the email that would be sent looked good from command line. followed link and successfully verified bogus email address
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran, asherkin
Maniphest Tasks: T4283
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7930
Summary:
Mailbox sometimes (?) changes the case of the email address (?). Be more liberal in what we accept.
Also fix a minor output bug.
Test Plan: Sent mail to `e1+...` instead of `E1+...`, verified it arrived.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7575
Summary:
Small step forward which improves existing stuff or lays groudwork for future stuff:
- Currently, to check for email verification, we have to single-query the email address on every page. Instead, denoramlize it into the user object.
- Migrate all the existing users.
- When the user verifies an email, mark them as `isEmailVerified` if the email is their primary email.
- Just make the checks look at the `isEmailVerified` field.
- Add a new check, `isUserActivated()`, to cover email-verified plus disabled. Currently, a non-verified-but-not-disabled user could theoretically use Conduit over SSH, if anyone deployed it. Tighten that up.
- Add an `isApproved` flag, which is always true for now. In a future diff, I want to add a default-on admin approval queue for new accounts, to prevent configuration mistakes. The way it will work is:
- When the queue is enabled, registering users are created with `isApproved = false`.
- Admins are sent an email, "[Phabricator] New User Approval (alincoln)", telling them that a new user is waiting for approval.
- They go to the web UI and approve the user.
- Manually-created accounts are auto-approved.
- The email will have instructions for disabling the queue.
I think this queue will be helpful for new installs and give them peace of mind, and when you go to disable it we have a better opportunity to warn you about exactly what that means.
Generally, I want to improve the default safety of registration, since if you just blindly coast through the path of least resistance right now your install ends up pretty open, and realistically few installs are on VPNs.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration, verified `isEmailVerified` populated correctly.
- Created a new user, checked DB for verified (not verified).
- Verified, checked DB (now verified).
- Used Conduit, People, Diffusion.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7572
Summary:
Ref T1536. This is the schema code for `PhabricatorExternalAccount` which was previously in D4647. I'm splitting it out so I can put it earlier in the sequence and because it's simple and standalone.
Expands `PhabricatorExternalAccount` to have everything we need for the rest of registration.
Test Plan: Implemented the remainder of new registration on top of this.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6169
Summary:
Moves all remaining mail handling into ReplyHandlers.
Farewell, `getPhabricatorToInformation()`! You were a bad method and no one liked you.
Ref T1205.
Test Plan:
- Used test console to send mail to Revisions, Tasks, Conpherences and Commits (these all actually work).
- Used test console to send mail to Requests, Macros, Questions and Mocks (these accept the mail but don't do anything with it, but didn't do anything before either).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5953
Summary: Ref T1205. Moves the handling logic for these email types to reply handlers.
Test Plan: Used test form to send conpherence and maniphest mail.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5945
Summary: Currently this is fairly hard-coded. Instead, make it use available receivers. Ref T1205.
Test Plan: Used mail form to send mail to various objects (Dnn, Tnn, Cnn, etc.). Only some of these work right now because the receiver thing still hard-codes a bunch of junk.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5944
Summary:
Ref T1205. Finally able to delete a big chunk of this nastiness.
Make MailReceivers responsible for validating senders. For object creation receivers (bugs, conpherences) this just means that users must not be disabled. For other receivers the senders must be able to see the objects, have the right hashes, etc., according to policy.
Test Plan: Added a bunch of test cases (everything except policy). Verified behavior via the Receive test console.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5943
Summary: Copies sender identification logic into MailReceivers and makes it basically sane. The mess we run into after this try/catch is terrifying so I'm avoiding actually getting rid of any of it quite yet. Ref T1205.
Test Plan: Added a bit of test coverage. Used Receiver test console to verify some additional behaviors.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: Afaque_Hussain, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5931
Summary: Ref T3183. We should accept addresses like `"New Bug" <bugs@example.com>` to match `bugs@example.com`.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3183
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5923
Summary:
Ref T1205. Continuation of D5915.
Currently, `PhabricatorMetaMTAReceivedMail` has //all// the logic for routing mail. In particular:
- New mail receivers in applications must edit it.
- Mail receivers don't drop out when applications are uninstalled.
Applications have some logic in subclasses of `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler`, but this class is a bit of a mess. It is also heavily based on the assumption that mail receivers are objects (like revisions), but this is not true in at least two cases today (creating new tasks with `bugs@`, creating a new Conpherence thread) and likely other cases in the future (e.g., revision-by-mail).
Move this logic into a new `PhabricatorMailReceiver` classtree. This is similar to `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler` but a bit cleaner and more general. I plan to heavily reduce the responsibilities of `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler` or possibly eliminate it entirely.
For now, the new classtree doesn't do much of interest. The only behavioral change this diff causes is that Phabricator will now reject mail to an application when that application is uninstalled.
I also moved all the `ReplyHandler` classes into `mail/` directories in their respective applications.
Test Plan: Unit tests, used receive test to route mail to various objects.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: Afaque_Hussain, edward, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5922
