[Dovecot] simple steps with sieve

[Mark Washenberger]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Steffen Kaiser <
skdovecot at smail.inf.fh-brs.de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
>  But _why_ is BCC spurious? There are spurious BCC, but not in general.
>>> If I BCC a message to somebody, I want to know an out-of-office state.
>>> Just like for any CC or TO recipient.
>>>
>>
>> At least one problem is email lists created using aliases. Like
>> everyone at company.com.
>>
>
> Even in this case, why not? I'm probably also not interested in the DSNs
> like "over quota" or something like that generated by the MTA. Actually, it
> would be nice if MTAs would pass through ESMTP RCPT's NOTIFY parameter (RFC
> 3461 sec 4.1), so the user could control the reply.
>
> Bye,
>
>
> - -- Steffen Kaiser
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEVAwUBSuiRw3WSIuGy1ktrAQIFxAgAqVSPhBB2wrAl42B+yi9e9Jz9vL9KbtPD
> +2dbvpyp+3iNeM+0DZoZ3rgUgIBZ/HMRrL6jb/SNmia7W0qyHDmMViw9+BMM2UTC
> WenPdz/k4VU80RtE/7glVPUl+v6+wiwpom115wUSaBxuV3YZeIfUL6KrHCb8a6vh
> zc5Ebby4noqnpIQamyLLHVPded9ib748sgFDnbRoD2CEqsyXiNwf4EzaGgrQ9zQ3
> jQbJ9HSIx93U5n4YZoKL/blyD1/K2V8xQ5roW+/QOkxzBM1w8HIhvwEVBjiZqJZQ
> QLjyX+oQCHpIehyJPB3jwNgVh+i837RYI68G7x8REwGeMg65aNGJ6A==
> =2KrB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

I realize this thread is a bit out of date, but I recently sent a patch to
the list to achieve similar behavior with a vacation tag ":x_any_address".
The "x" is because its a crazy extension, and because the letter X is cool.

There are a lot of cases where turning this behavior (responding regardless
of the recipient) is bad behavior. E.g. everyone at company.com. But then it is
up to the organization to have a policy of not using :x_any_address, just
like it is up to them to not use :addresses ["everyone at company.com"]. I can
pick a good default for my users, and unfortunately right now what they
expect is :x_any_address.

The thing I like about my patch is that, for my users, it can ultimately be
configurable to the most likely 3 cases:
1) only send VAR for the proper account
2) send VAR for a user specified list of accounts
3) always send VAR regardless of recipient (but still following other
recommendations in rfc 3834)


The thing I don't like about my patch is:
  Maintaining it!
  There might be a better name for this tag.
  The confusion of having both :x_any_address and :addresses <string list>
turned on at the same time


Cheers