On 02 Apr 2008, at 09:00, Joseph Brennan wrote:
> The crucial difference is that if one writes a bad procmail recipe,
> the message loops round and round until one of the MTAs considers
> the hop count exceeded and bounces it to sender, but if one writes
> a bad sieve rule, the message _is silently
Matt Garretson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Along similar lines, any well-written Procmail recipe which redirects
> mail typically checks for, or adds, an "X-Loop" header before
> forwarding anything.
Yes, it's an old solution.
The crucial difference is that if one writes a bad procmail recipe,
Wesley Craig wrote:
> There's no way to do that, but one could insert a header, e.g, "X-
> Sieve-Redirect". Maybe the value would be a random string which was
> also saved in the duplicate DB.
And, Joseph Brennan wrote:
> We might be smarter with case [1] if lmtpd inserted a "X-Been-Here"
> ty
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:52:10AM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Gary Mills wrote:
> >Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
> >back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
> >forwarding loop which cyrus breaks by discarding the e-mail. During
>
On Mar 31, 2008, at 5:40 AM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
>
> A mail delivery system that loses mail is buggy. I don't need to look
> at the code to know that.
And knives that cut people are bad. No matter how they are used.
*whatever*
plonk.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:51:17 -0700 (PDT), "Andrew Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:20PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Brennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jo Rhet
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:20PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Brennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I would ask that you spend some time determining how the
>
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:20PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Brennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I would ask that you spend some time determining how the
> > > program could determine it is a bad ru
On 31 Mar 2008, at 11:52, Ken Murchison wrote:
> How can
> lmtpd be intelligent enough to know that the forwarded address will
> cause the message to come back?
There's no way to do that, but one could insert a header, e.g, "X-
Sieve-Redirect". Maybe the value would be a random string which was
Joseph Brennan wrote:
>> I'm all for trying fix this if someone can come up with some logic to do
>> so. IMO, the code is correctly processing the script as written. Here
>> is the current code logic:
>>
>> - original message is sent to lmtpd
>> - message is forwarded and a record is put in deliv
> I'm all for trying fix this if someone can come up with some logic to do
> so. IMO, the code is correctly processing the script as written. Here
> is the current code logic:
>
> - original message is sent to lmtpd
> - message is forwarded and a record is put in deliver.db stating as much
> - f
Gary Mills wrote:
> Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
> back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
> forwarding loop which cyrus breaks by discarding the e-mail. During
> this vacation, all of the person's e-mail disappeared.
>
> Shouldn'
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Brennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would ask that you spend some time determining how the
> > program could determine it is a bad rule, and provide a patch to fix this
> > behavior. (in short -- it's harde
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 02:04:29PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Gary Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:27:29PM +0100, Alain Spineux wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Once agai
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would ask that you spend some time determining how the
> program could determine it is a bad rule, and provide a patch to fix this
> behavior. (in short -- it's harder than you think)
A mail delivery system that loses mail is buggy. I don't need to look
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Gary Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:27:29PM +0100, Alain Spineux wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
> > > ba
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:27:29PM +0100, Alain Spineux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
> > back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
> > forwarding lo
Joseph Brennan wrote:
> No, it is just totally wrong that an action other than 'discard' will
> result in mail silently vanishing. Maybe this is what does happen, but
> it is not what _should_ happen as was asked. It _should_ either go to
> inbox (grounds: ignore a bad rule)
You are assuming tha
--On Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:27 PM +0100 Alain Spineux
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Shouldn't we have a better solution to this problem? Some people
>> expect that forwarding e-mail to yourself should work; nobody expects
>> the messages to vanish without a trace.
>
> You must enforce thi
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
> back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
> forwarding loop which cyrus breaks by discarding the e-mail. During
> this vacatio
20 matches
Mail list logo
