Re: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
Hi, You can use the notify feature of Cyrus. see contrib/notify_unix examples in the cyrus source directory. Johannes Walch wrote: > > Hi all, > > additionally to any change making configuration more easy, some sort of > logging should be introduced. If no vacation gets sent the admin should at > last know why. I struggled with vacation nearly a week just because nothing > is logged and I had to do a constant trial and error. > > Johannes Walch > nwe GmbH -- Atif Ghaffar Internet Development Manager 4unet AG/SA/Ltd. ---. +41 21 351 53 60 ¦ voice +41 79 659 89 72 ¦ mobile +41 21 254 53 62 ¦ fax http://www.4unet.net ¦ www http://www.atifghaffar.com ¦ homepage [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ email
RE: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
Hi all, additionally to any change making configuration more easy, some sort of logging should be introduced. If no vacation gets sent the admin should at last know why. I struggled with vacation nearly a week just because nothing is logged and I had to do a constant trial and error. Johannes Walch nwe GmbH
Re: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:22:16 +0200, > Atif Ghaffar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ag) writes: ag> I prefer the first one, but it has one drawback. ag> Vacation replies will be sent to group addresses , example info@company, ag> sales@company etc. If it's a mailing list done with relatively rational software, then in most cases the response should only go to the list admin, right? I'm torn about this one myself. On one hand I see why :addresses is done. Too many times I've seen the flood of vacation messages that can slam a list. The openssl-users list had a particularly nasty batch of these not long ago. On the other hand, with our Cyrus server receiving incoming mail via LMTP on a private network to the MTA router, we too have to fiddle with this :addresses setting quite a bit, and with the number of aliases folks sometimes get, this can be a real headache. At least Sieve doesn't reply to all the addresses in all the headers, but instead only to the envelope sender. It seems like these vacation mechanisms that cause such a mess blast a response to every address it can find in the header. So maybe having an imapd.conf flag to loosen the restriction on vacation wouldn't be t catastrophic? On the other hand, Sieve is now an RFC, and while the vacation extension is currently a draft and not yet an RFC, perhaps it is far enough along that offering some kind of option would violate that specification. Ugh. -- Amos
Re: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
Thank you Ken. Now vacation message works fine, so I installed websieve (very easy). Bacioni Siur K. --- __O Stefano Coatti - MAP _-\<,_ Inferentia S.p.A. (_)/ (_) Tel. 02.59928.258
Re: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
Hi, We also had similar confusion with vacation. One of the problem was that the internal name of the mail box was [EMAIL PROTECTED] example [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this is what vacation was looking for in the envelope. We solved this by adding user's principal email address to the adresses field. Another problem is aliases. My principal email address at work is [EMAIL PROTECTED] but some people write to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] while others (more formal) at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and then the insiders (lazy ones) [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc, etc, not to mention using cases where the complete domain points to the same user. Example case. Instead of giving my users, [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the email address, I can assign them @username.domain.tld, so they can use different email addresses for different lists, sites etc.(One of the ways to figure out, who is selling your address). How will vacation handle these cases? I agree with Gary that specifying :addresses is confusing. If it is possible, I would suggest two remedies. 1. Dont check for any envelope. If the mail has arrived to my box, then it was destined for me and a vacation reply should be sent. 2. Look up address in some map such as LDAP mail aliases etc. I prefer the first one, but it has one drawback. Vacation replies will be sent to group addresses , example info@company, sales@company etc. regards. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There are many circumstances in which the envelope recipient address, > as modified by lmtpd, will never match the header recipients. This > will happen if the mail server has an unqualified hostname, if sendmail > is masquerading header recipients, of if sendmail accepts mail sent > to a CNAME, for example. In theses cases Sieve Vacation will never > respond to incoming mail unless the correct :addresses values are > specified in the sieve script. Having to specify these is unnecessary > and confusing. -- Atif Ghaffar Internet Development Manager 4unet AG/SA/Ltd. ---. +41 21 351 53 60 ¦ voice +41 79 659 89 72 ¦ mobile +41 21 254 53 62 ¦ fax http://www.4unet.net ¦ www http://www.atifghaffar.com ¦ homepage [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ email
Re: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
I no longer have the original message in this thread, but for the benefit of others trying to make Sieve Vacation work, I'm going to summarize what I've discovered. Ken Murchison is correct in that Sieve Vacation does not consult the `servername' setting from /etc/imapd.conf to determine the domain portion of the recipient address. In fact, it compares the envelope recipient to the header recipients to determine if the message is ``personally addressed''. If there are :addresses values specified in the sieve script, it compares the envelope recipient to those as well. Both the user portion and the domain portion of the addresses have to match in order for Sieve Vacation to respond to the message. However, the domain portion of the envelope recipient address is set by Cyrus lmptd. Sendmail always strips the domain portion of the envelope recipient when doing local delivery, leaving an unqualified address. Cyrus lmptd qualifies this with the `servername' setting from /etc/imapd.conf, or the local hostname, if this setting is absent. There are many circumstances in which the envelope recipient address, as modified by lmtpd, will never match the header recipients. This will happen if the mail server has an unqualified hostname, if sendmail is masquerading header recipients, of if sendmail accepts mail sent to a CNAME, for example. In theses cases Sieve Vacation will never respond to incoming mail unless the correct :addresses values are specified in the sieve script. Having to specify these is unnecessary and confusing. One solution would be a configuration setting for the domain that Cyrus lmptd uses to qualify the envelope recipient. However, this only takes care of the simplest case. A better solution would be a configuration setting for a list of domains that Sieve Vacation would recognize as local domains. This would mean that Vacation would work correctly by default, and that most users would not need to specify :addresses values. -- -Gary Mills--Unix Support--U of M Academic Computing and Networking-
Re: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Kenneth Murchison writes: > > > >> vacation :days 20 :addresses "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "Delirio tremens..."; > > >With this action, the only messages that will generate vacation > >responses are those sent to "stefano.coatti" and > >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". > > You are assuming that `servername' is not specified in /etc/imapd.conf. > If it is, `vacation' will append that domain to "stefano.coatti". > My sendmail configuration, for example, always qualifies unqualified > addresses, so that I must define `servername' to get a working default > for sieve `vacation'. I think you're mistaken. Please show me where in the code vacation does anything with the servername. Vacation makes no assumptions about what the server or domain name is when comparing addresses, it simply compares the envelope TO address and any :addresses specified in the vacation action to those in the TO, CC and BCC headers in the message body. I worked on a lot of this code, so I'm pretty sure that I'm right. But please correct me if I'm wrong, I might actually learn something today :^) 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
Re: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
Kenneth Murchison writes: > >> vacation :days 20 :addresses "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "Delirio tremens..."; >With this action, the only messages that will generate vacation >responses are those sent to "stefano.coatti" and >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". You are assuming that `servername' is not specified in /etc/imapd.conf. If it is, `vacation' will append that domain to "stefano.coatti". My sendmail configuration, for example, always qualifies unqualified addresses, so that I must define `servername' to get a working default for sieve `vacation'. -- -Gary Mills--Unix Support--U of M Academic Computing and Networking-
Re: Problem with Sieve & Vacation message
Stefano Coatti wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I use cyrus 2.0.16 with sendmail and sendmail 8.11.6.
> I retry to solve the problem of sieve vacation message.
>
> My actual Mailer configuration in sendmail is:
>
> Mcyrus,P=[IPC], F=lsDFMnqA5@/:|SmXz, E=\r\n,
>S=EnvFromL, R=EnvToL/HdrToL, T=DNS/RFC822/X-Unix,
>A=FILE /var/imap/socket/lmtp
>
> With this configuration, sieve mechanism works fine but vacation message no.
> For example the script:
>
> require ["reject","fileinto"];
>
>if address :is :all "From" "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>{
> reject "testing";
>}
>
> is OK while in the execution of this script:
>
> require ["vacation"];
>
> vacation :days 20 :addresses "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "Delirio tremens...";
>
> nothing happens.
With this action, the only messages that will generate vacation
responses are those sent to "stefano.coatti" and
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I'm guessing that you want to add at least
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to the list of :addresses.
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
