Hi,
We are trying to auto-reply to emails that still use one of our old domains. To do this, I have setup a catch-all mailbox for anything sent to that old domain using postfix virtual:
@old.domain.com catch-all@new.domain.com
Then I defined a sieve script for catch-all@new.domain.com, like:
However, sieve never sends any auto-reply, because it logs:
Can anyone suggest what to do here?
Thanks and stay healthy!
MJ
- mj:
Can anyone suggest what to do here?
I suggest you don't use Sieve for this, but simply configure Postfix to reject messages to @old.domain.com with the desired message. MTA rejections signal clearly that the message has not been delivered, and you can also include an URL pointing to a web page with more detailed information.
-Ralph
Hi Ralph!
Thanks for your reply!
On 4/20/20 12:19 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
However, this means those emails are not actually delivered anymore.
For now, I would like them to *be* delivered, so we still have them in case something important comes in.
Your postfix suggestion would be my next step, in a couple of months perhaps.
Hopefully someone has a suggestion for my sieve script.
Thanks again, MJ
- mj:
this means those emails are not actually delivered anymore.
Sure. That's how I interpreted your notification text "This message is sent automatically, and your message has NOT been read nor forwarded." If the message is not being read, why accept it in the first place?
For now, I would like them to *be* delivered, so we still have them in case something important comes in.
Speaking for myself: If I send email to a business partner, that email can be a) rejected, so I know I'll have to find another way to reach the intended recipient, or it can be b) accepted, in which case I expect it to be read/processed.
What you describe seems to be neither fish nor flesh to me. Using MTA rejects leaves no doubt that the *sender* has to become active. As I understand it, that is you goal, is it not?
-Ralph
Yes, with a rejection message that informs why the message was not delivered. This is the best thing you can do as it will force people to actually change the email.
If you delay this by doing something temporary, all you are doing is delaying it. Once you cut off the old email you’ll be in the exact same situation you are in right now, as very few people will update email addresses.
If all you do now is autrespond with an automated message, most people will never see that message. And if your auto-responder is paying the message is not read or forwarded, what are you gaining? It is much better for the sender to get an actual error which they are much more likely to see.
The other thing you can do is NOMX the old domain.
-- in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on
Hi all,
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
The idea behind the catch-all mailbox is basically to have a transitional period between now and the nullmx config we did not know about. (thanks for mentioning that, we will do it!)
Our autoreply message reads: "Your email has not been read nor forwarded", which is also the case, forcing the sender to take action. It is just kept in a simple catch-all mailbox, for a couple of weeks/months, in case we discover that something important was accidentally still sent to the old domain.
And yes, that would be neither fish nor flesh for the time being, but only during the transitional period. Afterwards we will put the nullmx config in place.
Thanks for again for all your thoughts: appreciated.
MJ
On 4/21/20 4:02 AM, LuKreme wrote:
- mj:
Our autoreply message reads: "Your email has not been read nor forwarded", which is also the case, forcing the sender to take action.
No, it does not. An auto-reply message, even if it is actually read by the sender, can be ignored without penalty. An MTA rejection puts the ball into the sender's court because the message has never been accepted by the recipient's MX. By the way, a rejection is "legally safe", while your catch-all-and-let-messages-rot approach is not, in case you have not considered that.
Of course, you can do as you please, but that does not change the facts and mechanics involved.
-Ralph
On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:54, Ralph Seichter <abbot@monksofcool.net> wrote:
Yep, that was the point I was trying to make upthread, but you stated it better.
Good point, I haven’t thought of that. That, alone, is a reason not to do this.
Of course, you can do as you please, but that does not change the facts and mechanics involved.
👍
-- @notallmikaylas Any man who is genuinely scared that feminism means female dominance pictures a world where men are treated like women. Think about that.
participants (5)
-
＠lbutlr
-
LuKreme
-
mj
-
Ralph Seichter
-
Remo Mattei