On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 09:41:31AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
>
>
> Scott Russell wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I've got the sieve stuff from 2.1.x CVS build under 2.0.16 and
> > everything seems to be running fine. A few test scripts I setup worked
> > as expected.
> >
> > With the vacation setup, what will it NOT respond to. I've some of this
> > listed in the draft but I'm looking for a full list. I would also like
> > to know if the list of don't-reply-conditions is configurable.
> >
> > My first concern is that vacation NOT respond to mail with headers of
> > Precedence: Bulk. I know Mailman uses this and we have a lot of mailman lists
> > here. :)
>
> The Sieve draft (as you've noticed) and the CMU implementation only
> check for automated system type sender addresses (does Mailman use
> something other than those listed in the draft?).
I think Mailman 2.0.8 may slip by those checks. I need to double check it
before I can say for sure. Some relevant headers from a Mailman list (I've
trimmed down the delivery path and what not as it doesn't make a difference
for sieve.)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 17 23:39:36 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by bzimage.raleigh.ibm.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0I4daG16874
for <scottrus@localhost>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:39:36 -0500
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.0
<snip>
From: Scott Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ibm-linux-tech] IBM server raid 4L
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Subscribe: <http://ltc.linux.ibm.com/mailman/listinfo/ibm-linux-tech>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Technical discussion of Linux issues <ibm-linux-tech.linux.ibm.com>
List-Unsubscribe:
<http://ltc.linux.ibm.com/mailman/listinfo/ibm-linux-tech>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ltc.linux.ibm.com/pipermail/ibm-linux-tech/>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:30:42 -0500
Since there is no -owner as majordomo does I think this slips by.
> Dealing with other
> headers would be touchy at best, because somebody will always complain
> that we have it wrong. Making it configurable is a possibility,
I meantion the Precedence: bulk header because I thought it was an RFC mail
header. I could be wrong though. I agree that we shouldn't muck up the
vacation module with to much garbage. I do think that the guidelines used
by the BSD/Linux vacation binary work well though. The vacation binary
also supports the Precedence: header.
> but this can be easily done within the script itself:
>
> if not header "Precedence" "Bulk" {
> vacation "gone fishing";
> }
>
Yup, that's what I was thinking about doing. I'll just setup a modified
version of the vacation template we used and include this.
--
Regards,
Scott Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux Technology Center, System Admin, RHCE.
T/L 441-9289 / External 919-543-9289
http://bzimage.raleigh.ibm.com/webcam
