On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 13:12 -0500, sa-li...@techsuperpowers.com wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> > maybe its just me, but was there really an issue with out of office
> > messages?
> > (except in this mailing list :-)
> i noticed the same thing when we first started using vbounce; i just
> edited the rule to allow that language through (specifically, as best
> i can recall, anyway, i disabled the OOO checks, but left the rest
> alone.)
>
> i'm not sure i'd recommend it, since any upgrade will replace the
> edited file; but i keep a copy of my edits in a safe place, and it
Hmm, exactly the reason for my earlier post about "disabling the sub
rules"...
> works for us. since then we've had almost no backscatter complaints
> from our users, but OOOs come through just fine.
Rather than messing with *any* file that will be overwritten by
sa-update, you should just disable the (sub-)tests. It is generally
strongly advised against editing the stock rules directly -- for the
reason you mentioned. :)
meta __BOUNCE_OOO_1 0
Just as an example. You should do the same in local.cf with any rules
you disabled locally by editing the stock rules.
FWIW, and to make Michael happy, I just caught one today -- hit another
rule, __BOUNCE_OOO_3. Sadly, it also hit __BOUNCE_AUTO_REPLY. So there's
more to disable...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
