Simeon Ott:
>
> On 03.10.2011, at 00:35, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Simeon Ott:
> >> and how did you guys configure gnarwl without having these problems?
> >> am i the only one who experienced this with GNARWL? that sounds a
> >> bit strange to me.
> >
> > First, few sites use BATV.
> >
> > Second, BATV works perfectly fine with autoresponders that adhere
> > to mail standards: a) reply to the envelope sender address, and b)
> > send the reply with a null envelope sender address.
> >
> > I suspect that BATV also inter-operates with buggy autoresponders
> > that violate both requirements a) and b): reply to an address in
> > the from header, and send email with a non-null envelope sender.
> >
> > But BATV won't inter-operate with buggy autoresponders that violate
> > only a) or b) but not both. That is a BATV feature, not a bug.
> >
> > Currently, your gnarwl setup falls into none of these categories
> > since it changes a remote address into a local one.
> >
> > You can prevent address destruction by not using the gnarwl -s
> > option (this means you will violate requirement a) above), but
> > that won't be sufficient for BATV inter-operability unless gnarwl
> > also violates the b) requirement.
> >
> > Wietse
>
> Thank you Wietse for your supportive analytical understanding. Even if i d
>-idn't get the two last points (a and b) you pointed me to one possible solut
>-ion :-) Omitting the -s parameter and it's argument forces GNARWL to read th
>-e senders email address from the piped mail - GNARWL doesn't fail in this ca
>-se and uses the correct email address (Envelope From Header) to send its aut
>-oresponse.
This is NOT THE SOLUTION. Autoresponders that reply to the header
are broken, as outlined above.
The solution is to fix gnarwl sothat it does not modify the address.
Wietse
Wietse
