|
From: David G. <da...@co...> - 2012-02-21 13:02:54
|
>
> Above that section where the headers get examined, there is this section:
>
> # Make sure the email wasn't sent by someone who could be a mailing
> # list etc; if it was, then we abort after appropriate logging.
> sub check_and_clean_from_address {
> my ($address) = @_;
> my $logger = get_logger();
>
> if($address =~
> /^(noreply|postmaster|mailer\-daemon|listserv|majordomo|owner\-|request\-|bounces\-)/i
> ||
> $address =~ /\-(owner|request|bounces)\@/i ) {
> $logger->debug("sender $address contains $1 - will not send
> vacation message");
> exit(0);
> }
>
> First question: would the from= address that I saw in my postfix log be
> matched by the $address variable above?
>
Yes.
> Anyway, my overall goal here is concerning the huge growth in these
> social networking sites - shouldn't vacation.pl specifically take these
> systems into account? Meaning, rather than us sysadmins just trying to
> keep up with these individually, shouldn't official support be added to
> vacation.pl for these services?
>
Yes, it probably should. I suspect not many people are using it - hence there haven't been many patches/bugs/whatever reported.
> Next question: do you agree that this is the more appropriate place for
> checks for these kinds of services? I think these social networking
> services definitely fall into the category of 'etc' in the comments.
>
> So, I'm thinking we could modify that text to:
>
> # Make sure the email wasn't from a mailing list, an automated message
> # from a social networking site, etc; if it was, then we abort after
> # appropriate logging.
>
> Then, modify the code appropriately with as many known examples as possible.
>
Yes.
>
> So, with this in mind, if I modified the above to, say, something like:
>
> if($address =~
> /^(noreply|postmaster|mailer\-daemon|listserv|majordomo|owner\-|request\-|bounces\-)/i
> ||
> $address =~ /\-(owner|request|bounce|bounces)\@/i ) {
> $logger->debug("sender $address contains $1 - will not send
> vacation message");
> exit(0);
> }
>
> (I simply added 'bounce' before 'bounces')
>
> Would that catch the example I gave from linkedin, since it is
> from=blahblah.bounce.linkedin.com (bounce is singular, not plural)?
>
What you've added is looking for -bounce@
Which will not match bla...@bo...
> Also - is that a 'contains' search? If so, I'm guessing I could remove
> the plural form (bounces), since that would also be matched by 'bounce'?
>
No. The @ has to follow one of the things in the brackets (owner|request|bouce|bounces)
thanks,
David.
|
