On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, James Ralston wrote:
Because of SpamCop's attitude towards autoresponders*, I wish to patch the implementation of the SIEVE vacation extension so that it will never respond to remote addresses.
Wow, that's pretty useless:
"Solution: Do not use these systems. Inform your normal corespondents of your absence before you depart. Or let a co-worker answer your email in your absence. Publish FAQ information on a web-site. If you wish to dispense information via email, it's easy to reject a message while referring the sender to a FAQ web-page. Using sendmail, this is done in the access.db table like so:
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Old address no longer valid, please see: http://www.example.com/NewAddressInfo.html";
So according to them I should either let someone else read my mail, or reject my mail... by giving users the ability to load addresses into sendmail config files!
From looking at sieve/bc_eval.c, this actually seems pretty straightforward to do; I can just add another test case to shouldRespond().
There's a comment fairly early in shouldRespond:
/* Note: the domain-part of all addresses are canonicalized */
Does this mean that parse_address() is always going to return an addr-spec, as per RFC2822 section 3.4.1?
As opposed to what?
--- Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
