On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 03:07:15PM +0200, Peter Thomassen via Exim-users wrote:
> > This filter is not a good idea. It appears to fail to take into account > > the essential requirements of RFC3834: > > > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3834> > > > > in particular the exceptions listed in: > > > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3834#section-2> > > > > and ensuring that auto-reply envelope sender is the NULL sender: <>. > > > > So unless those requirements are built-in features of the filter syntax, > > this filter MUST NOT be used without appropriate modifications. > > The docs say that the "mail" command has "no effect when the incoming > message is a bounce (delivery error) message, and messages sent by > this means are treated as if they were reporting delivery errors. > Thus, they should never themselves cause a bounce message to be > returned." > (https://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/filter_ch-exim_filter_files.html#SECTmail) > > And indeed, the Return-path: header of so-generated response messages > is <> (I've checked). Assuming I'm understanding things correctly, > this should take care of it. The RFC lists additional auto-responder requirements, specifying headers to add, and not responding when similar headers are present in the incoming message. I'd like to suggest following the recommendations closely. The "vacation" program generally handles this correctly. -- Viktor. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні! -- ## subscription configuration (requires account): ## https://lists.exim.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/exim-users.lists.exim.org/ ## unsubscribe (doesn't require an account): ## [email protected] ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
