Scott Russell wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:49:26AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
> >
> >
> > Scott Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 09:41:31AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Scott Russell wrote:
> > > > > 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 also forgot that CMU Sieve checks for an Auto-Submitted header with a
> > keyword other than "no".
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Yeah. I just checked out the vacation.c packaged with Sendmail, and it
> > checks for "Precedence: junk|bulk|list"
> >
> > I also remember a discussion on the mta-filters list about checking for
> > headers that start with "List-". I don't recall there ever being a
> > resolution to this. And I don't think a new draft has come out since.
> >
> > I'm going back on my previous statement, but perhaps both of these
> > checks are worthwhile adding to the CMU implementation. Yes, you can do
> > this within the script itself, but expecting all users to do this is
> > probably too optimistic (a good GUI or template _could_ do it however).
> >
> > Any reasons not to add these checks?
> >
>
> I, obviously, vote for the Precedence: header checks. I'm not sure about the
> List- header check because I've never looked at it closely.
>
> IMHO the sieve vacation module should mimic the vacation binary as closely
> as possible when it comes to sending replies. I think that people are used to
> the vacation binary rules and that having the sieve vacation module follow
> the same rules would provide a smooth transition from client side to server
> side vacation usage.
Agreed. I'm going to add the Precedence header check momentarily. We
are going to skip the List- header check because it would be difficult
to implement given the current cmu-sieve architecture, and this check
doesn't seem to be in wide use.
Ken
--
Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
