Pascal Volk schrieb:

On 07/13/2009 10:06 AM M. Bobkiewicz wrote:

...

Hi, I?m facing here a wierd problem: We have a vacation messaging system using sieve. When activated the system forwards incomming messages to a given address and sents an out of office reply to the sender. This works like a charm when the mail is addressed to mailbox@domain. When the incomming mail ist addressed to alias.to.mailbox@domain the mail is delivered to the mailbox, it is forwarded to the given reciepient but there is no auto reply going out to the sender! Our setup: CentOS 5.2 + postfix 2.5.6 + dovecot 1.1.11 with domain and accounts stored in a mysql database. The script:

require ["fileinto", "vacation"]; redirect "mailbox2@domain"; keep; vacation :days 1 :subject "Out of Office reply" " The auto reply text.

";

Any advice is welcome,

You have to add the alias addresses to the :addresses list. For example:

require ["fileinto", "vacation"];
redirect "mailbox2@domain";
keep;
vacation
     :days 1
     :subject "Out of Office reply"
     :addresses ["1st.alias@domain", "2nd.alias@domain"]
"
The auto reply text.

";

See also: http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve#Vacation_auto-reply-1

First of all thanks for the hint, it works. Second, nice to see the discussion, we did have the same here at my location when I told my boss about the reason for the error...

Regards,

Mike

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 02:03:38PM +0200, Steffen Kaiser wrote:

You have to enumerate all addresses in the ":address" tag of vacation. It's actually a real pain here.

It's a feature, not a bug.

This is to avoid auto-replies on messages not addressed directly to you (eg. sent via mailing lists).

Geert

-- Geert Hendrickx -=- ghen@telenet.be -=- PGP: 0xC4BB9E9F This e-mail was composed using 100% recycled spam messages!

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 02:21:39PM +0200, Steffen Kaiser wrote:

...

This is to avoid auto-replies on messages not addressed directly to you (eg. sent via mailing lists).

a) Mailing lists must set Precedence: bulk

b) Many lists address you in To or CC.

c) Why shall no vacation to be sent, if I'm BCC'ed ?

d) You cannot enumerate all addresses for some accounts.

It's RFC recommended practice, see RFC 3834:

• Personal and Group responses whose purpose is to notify the sender of a message of a temporary absence of the recipient (e.g., "vacation" and "out of the office" notices) SHOULD NOT be issued unless a valid address for the recipient is explicitly included in a recipient (e.g., To, Cc, Bcc, Resent-To, Resent-Cc, or Resent- Bcc) field of the subject message. Since a recipient may have multiple addresses forwarded to the same mailbox, recipients SHOULD be able to specify a set of addresses to the responder which it will recognize as valid for that recipient.

Geert

-- Geert Hendrickx -=- ghen@telenet.be -=- PGP: 0xC4BB9E9F This e-mail was composed using 100% recycled spam messages!

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 03:42:31PM +0200, Steffen Kaiser wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Geert Hendrickx wrote:

...

It's RFC recommended practice, see RFC 3834:

I know. Just for this I re-calcalculated my email address stats.

There is a SHOULD two times. I have replied on this somewhen in the past already. My email domain can be written in 488 ways plus some wicked others. Now add the 87 aliases I have, minus some list-specific plus some others.

This is not the case for the general user, so in general the advice is useful, and avoids a lot of useles backscatter and mailing list pollution.

Yes I am "able to specify a set of addresses to the responder which it will recognize as valid for that recipient."

Yes, you can call this a mis-configuration, it won't bug me.

Feel free to hack away the limitation in the code. You're not braking any laws by doing so. ;-)

Geert

-- Geert Hendrickx -=- ghen@telenet.be -=- PGP: 0xC4BB9E9F This e-mail was composed using 100% recycled spam messages!