Hi,
I'd probably merge it for you
Ideally make the patch against the vacation.pl which is in trunk. That would make my life easiest.
David.
On 26 Mar 2013, at 11:17, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote:
> Well, I guess Rudi went on vacation or something...
>
> I'm sure glad he stayed long enough for me to get this working. :)
>
> So, if I were to attempt to create a patch for this (shudder - I'm not
> the best one to be doing this)), which vacation.pl should the path be
> made against (I currently have 2.3.6 installed)? And if I got it right,
> would anyone other than Rudi be inclined to accept it and incorporate it
> into the core vacation.pl?
>
> The change is fairly minor, and it greatly (imho) improves (reduces the
> number of messages that the vacation message should *not* respond to),
> as well as makes it fairly trivial for admins to add their own strings
> to the list of strings to test for.
>
> Thanks...
>
> On 2013-03-18 4:00 PM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote:
>> Ok, its been almost a week, and this is working perfectly...
>>
>> Rudi, did you get a chance to look at this yet? It (just the one new
>> variable, only one test performed in the 'sub
>> check_and_clean_from_address' function) is so much simpler than what we
>> had before (a new option and new variable, and 3 tests in the 'sub
>> check_and_clean_from_address' function)...
>>
>> Thanks again for your help!
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> Quoting the relevant part of my last email on this, showing what I am
>> using now)...
>>
>> On 2013-03-13 11:43 AM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to adjust the defaults for the custom
>>> pattern to include all of the values in the immediately prior two tests,
>>> and change this to just the one test, instead of basically having three
>>> separate tests (one to test the local part, the next to test the domain
>>> part, and finally our new custom one to test the whole thing?
>>>
>>> And if this is ultimately the desired goal, we could rename the
>>> variables one last time, and end up with something like:
>>>
>>> # This is the list of strings that is checked against both the
>>> # envelope sender and any/all From header addresses that, if
>>> # matched, results in the vacation message not being sent.
>>> our $noreply_pattern =
>>> 'bounce|do-not-reply|facebook|linkedin|list-|listserv|mailer\-daemon|majordomo|myspace|noreply|owner\-|\-(owner|request|bounces)|postmaster|request\-|twitter';
>>>
>>> Then the new 'sub check_and_clean_from_address' function would be
>>> something like:
>>>
>>>> sub check_and_clean_from_address {
>>>> my ($address) = @_;
>>>> my $logger = get_logger();
>>>>
>>>> if($address =~ /^.*($noreply_pattern).*/i) ) {
>>>> $logger->debug("sender $address contains $1 - will not send vacation message");
>>>> exit(0);
>>>> }
>>>> $address = strip_address($address);
>>>> if($address eq '') {
>>>> $logger->error("Address $address is not valid; exiting");
>>>> exit(0);
>>>> }
>>>> #$logger->debug("Address cleaned up to $address");
>>>> return $address;
>>>> }
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
>> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
>> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Postfixadmin-devel mailing list
>> Pos...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postfixadmin-devel
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Own the Future-Intel® Level Up Game Demo Contest 2013
> Rise to greatness in Intel's independent game demo contest.
> Compete for recognition, cash, and the chance to get your game
> on Steam. $5K grand prize plus 10 genre and skill prizes.
> Submit your demo by 6/6/13. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel_levelupd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Postfixadmin-devel mailing list
> Pos...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postfixadmin-devel
|