On 11/24/2009 6:27 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 11/23/2009, Patrick Nagel (patrick.nagel@star-group.net) wrote:
Yes, that was my first proposal, but that was also rejected harshly by the other project managers. They wanted to have some "transit time" in which the replacement guy would still access the leaving guy's mailbox.
They felt that just deactivating the mailbox and rejecting mails would be "rude".
Add an alias to the x-managers account that forwards all incoming mail to his replacement, or
Add the x-managers account to your replacements email client, so they can check it as well as theirs.
- (slightly different) Have the vacation auto-reply set and also use the sieve redirect method after the vacation message gets processed?
redirect :copy "newmanager@example.com";
New manager gets the email, clients get a "hey, I retired but these folks over here will also get a copy of your message and will help you" message.
90% sure you can do that (vacation is supposed to be compatible with redirect)... I'll have to try it the next time that someone retires around here.
Eventually (30-90 days), we turned off the redirect and changed the vacation message.
You'll want a very good server-side spam filter with aggressive quarantine levels for that user if you're going to have a long-running vacation reply in place. That'll avoid the vacation script replying to every joe-jobbed message that makes it into the mailbox.
The sooner that you can start returning 5xx codes for the old address the better (IMHO).
(Still doesn't address the issue of more then one per day, but you'd have to complain about that to the folks who wrote RFC 5230 who specify that :days has to be greater then zero.)