Re: [Dovecot] sieve vacation
Following from Steffen Kaiser's response, RFC5230 explains the conditions necessary for the Sieve Vacation extension to trigger a response. This says:
"Vacation" MUST NOT respond to a message unless the recipient user's email address is in a "To", "Cc", "Bcc", "Resent-To", "Resent-Cc", or "Resent-Bcc" line of the original message.
So your scenario 4 happens when the sender is only in the envelope, and not in the headers.
For example: this transaction will get a response because the mailbox address is in the To: header
ehlo there.com mail from: <dude@there.com> rcpt to: <user@domain.tld> << envelope recipient, mailsystem routes with this information data To: "Some User" <user@domain.tld> << header recipient must be correlated for Sieve Vacation to send a response From: "Dude" <dude@there.com> Subject: message
Hi there .
This transaction will not get a response, and will trigger the "discarding vacation response for message implicitly delivered to <user@domain.tld> " log:
ehlo there.com mail from: <dude@there.com> rcpt to: <user@domain.tld> data Subject: message
Hi there .
Cheers,
-Martin Foster
Le 12-Feb-10 21:00, dovecot-request@dovecot.org a écrit :
Message: 9 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:18:23 +0100 From: Lampa<lampacz@gmail.com> Subject: [Dovecot] sieve vacation To: Dovecot Mailing List<dovecot@dovecot.org> Message-ID: <9aef75b11002120018v69f185b5hb0a9e0f7dad1e5c5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello,
scenario:
OK 1. created vacation script (see below) OK 2. send message fromuser@anotherdomain.tld touser@domain.tld => got auto vacation response (2010-02-11T19:42:13) OK 3. send message fromuser@anotherdomain.tld touser@domain.tld => no response (is ok because ":days 1" settings) (2010-02-11T19:47:46) BAD 4. send message fromanotheruser@anotherdomain.tld to user@domain.tld => no response (2010-02-11T19:48:04)
Why is discarding vacation response for message implicitly delivered to<user@domain.tld> ?
log: 2010-02-11T19:42:13.669321+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<052a01caab49$ec4752e0$c4d5f8a0$@tld>: sent vacation response to <user@anotherdomain.tld> 2010-02-11T19:42:13.732541+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<052a01caab49$ec4752e0$c4d5f8a0$@tld>: stored mail into mailbox 'INBOX' 2010-02-11T19:47:46.271534+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<053201caab4a$b295ece0$17c1c6a0$@tld>: discarded duplicate vacation response to<user@anotherdomain.tld> 2010-02-11T19:47:46.275891+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<053201caab4a$b295ece0$17c1c6a0$@tld>: stored mail into mailbox 'INBOX' 2010-02-11T19:48:04.958622+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<053701caab4a$bda90220$38fb0660$@tld>: discarding vacation response for message implicitly delivered to<user@domain.tld> 2010-02-11T19:48:04.965875+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<053701caab4a$bda90220$38fb0660$@tld>: stored mail into mailbox 'INBOX'
vacation script:
require "vacation";
vacation :days 1 :subject "Auto reply"
"auto reply message";
Thank you -- Lampa ------------------------------
So if i understand this fully, you must define ALL potentional aliases which user is member of ?
When create new alias alias1@domain.tld and it is alias for user@domain.tld i must edit vacation script and add :address "alias1@domain.tld" ? If yes, is little stupid and unmaintainable. Can be used some wildcard * or something similar ?
2010/2/12 Martin F. Foster <martin_foster@pacific.net.au>:
Following from Steffen Kaiser's response, RFC5230 explains the conditions necessary for the Sieve Vacation extension to trigger a response. This says:
"Vacation" MUST NOT respond to a message unless the recipient user's email address is in a "To", "Cc", "Bcc", "Resent-To", "Resent-Cc", or "Resent-Bcc" line of the original message.
So your scenario 4 happens when the sender is only in the envelope, and not in the headers.
For example: this transaction will get a response because the mailbox address is in the To: header
ehlo there.com mail from: <dude@there.com> rcpt to: <user@domain.tld> << envelope recipient, mailsystem routes with this information data To: "Some User" <user@domain.tld> << header recipient must be correlated for Sieve Vacation to send a response From: "Dude" <dude@there.com> Subject: message
Hi there .
This transaction will not get a response, and will trigger the "discarding vacation response for message implicitly delivered to <user@domain.tld> " log:
ehlo there.com mail from: <dude@there.com> rcpt to: <user@domain.tld> data Subject: message
Hi there .
Cheers,
-Martin Foster
Le 12-Feb-10 21:00, dovecot-request@dovecot.org a écrit :
Message: 9 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:18:23 +0100 From: Lampa<lampacz@gmail.com> Subject: [Dovecot] sieve vacation To: Dovecot Mailing List<dovecot@dovecot.org> Message-ID: <9aef75b11002120018v69f185b5hb0a9e0f7dad1e5c5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello,
scenario:
OK 1. created vacation script (see below) OK 2. send message fromuser@anotherdomain.tld touser@domain.tld => got auto vacation response (2010-02-11T19:42:13) OK 3. send message fromuser@anotherdomain.tld touser@domain.tld => no response (is ok because ":days 1" settings) (2010-02-11T19:47:46) BAD 4. send message fromanotheruser@anotherdomain.tld to user@domain.tld => no response (2010-02-11T19:48:04)
Why is discarding vacation response for message implicitly delivered to<user@domain.tld> ?
log: 2010-02-11T19:42:13.669321+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<052a01caab49$ec4752e0$c4d5f8a0$@tld>: sent vacation response to <user@anotherdomain.tld> 2010-02-11T19:42:13.732541+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<052a01caab49$ec4752e0$c4d5f8a0$@tld>: stored mail into mailbox 'INBOX' 2010-02-11T19:47:46.271534+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<053201caab4a$b295ece0$17c1c6a0$@tld>: discarded duplicate vacation response to<user@anotherdomain.tld> 2010-02-11T19:47:46.275891+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<053201caab4a$b295ece0$17c1c6a0$@tld>: stored mail into mailbox 'INBOX' 2010-02-11T19:48:04.958622+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<053701caab4a$bda90220$38fb0660$@tld>: discarding vacation response for message implicitly delivered to<user@domain.tld> 2010-02-11T19:48:04.965875+01:00 hermes dovecot: deliver(user@domain.tld): sieve: msgid=<053701caab4a$bda90220$38fb0660$@tld>: stored mail into mailbox 'INBOX'
vacation script:
require "vacation";
vacation :days 1 :subject "Auto reply"
"auto reply message";
Thank you -- Lampa ------------------------------
-- Lampa
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Lampa wrote:
So if i understand this fully, you must define ALL potentional aliases which user is member of ?
Yes.
When create new alias alias1@domain.tld and it is alias for user@domain.tld i must edit vacation script and add :address "alias1@domain.tld" ? If yes, is little stupid and unmaintainable. Can
Yes, actually.
be used some wildcard * or something similar ?
No, currently.
However, the Sieve implementation is open-source and it seems to be easy to spot the correct place to patch.
Funnily, there are lots of different personal opinions about to which kind of messages an autoresponder has to respond to. E.g.:
- small alias lists: Yes; large one: No
- not if only BCC'ed
- _not_ for particular recipient addresses
Regards,
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBS4Oyzr+Vh58GPL/cAQLmfgf/XPr/qkMQdKoXPYyJAWPC3cU7p8yif53w suNl/YpvOhuFB4D+PYFok4082Bsb32ZkgDTCGV2si1DHOS1UPhHKnXah5AhcJ4Hy ZnEOtN9aRMojPbWxXYc+jp4eKdiiXZMtXYKZnJ+kIUrTHi+k6pEcBSI4Ff87hiDV eFS8S6/LE8A++/0FUspFrlMH/KM0EWg62jmz8TybBZ2zB6SR1hqbIp8TOht/WCI1 pEQyfvVkwyR1BBqFKz8Wx0meTvjBWV/UuMlJwpCTV4bdgtLB1YBzhJEDKwYjn6ef s43j1glHU85C5IF52VRwVH+O9cLOBmvep+Iw7kqCMMjwNH4YGpW0Xg== =GfyA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello,
be used some wildcard * or something similar ?
No, currently.
However, the Sieve implementation is open-source and it seems to be easy to spot the correct place to patch.
Funnily, there are lots of different personal opinions about to which kind of messages an autoresponder has to respond to. E.g.:
- small alias lists: Yes; large one: No
- not if only BCC'ed
- _not_ for particular recipient addresses
Is there any hope that will be any "hack" in future to allow reply for all addresses?
-- Lampa
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Lampa wrote:
Is there any hope that will be any "hack" in future to allow reply for all addresses?
I've _my_ vision of how :addresses should be extended on my TODO list, but active Dovecot development is currently a bit down the list.
I'm planning this:
:addresses "me"
- -or, depending on complexity-
:addresses "me@*"
to match addresses of a predefined domain list, but with the given local part.
Regards,
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBS6IL4L+Vh58GPL/cAQJIwwf8DWODw5xZ/y6nzpoAcfsRNzdu8gYgthbh WSXsh7/s6KNB1EWF3bAPZA7RjZKxB2EOQp5VcQETdjrpRyBNnsWyMnV9o/pqSWue JG4qirUIKZLEMFYVO+FPBJIpBbVcP5mXJXP2KSnHQxBV1I7akE+7a2hX3bxPxXct y0Onmhu5jJ62ifGlyBCAstYNC9RRRCw/TEz99xeVEhILzUOBiziVTsePZJIi1lTy 0jVVaMY2RP9qmirX3OiSR2UdEEAuLMkBFDsD0OxxATzn3xm+jwhvnSheKIbZ7MYn p5wwnNy0FSISlxbURiSJThIeFqBD6ZSjccfUTKpcMs05zmWvfDyseA== =35SN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Lampa
-
Martin F. Foster
-
Steffen Kaiser