|
From: Christian B. <pos...@cb...> - 2013-03-14 23:30:55
|
Hello, Am Mittwoch, 13. März 2013 schrieb Tanstaafl: > There is one typo for sure: line 599, $adress should be $address Fixed in SVN r1444 (but only this typo - I didn't do anything on the other things you mentioned). > And finally, last question... > > What is the practical limit on the number of characters that can be > included in this variable? This is only limited by perl, and from what I found via google, you'll hit the limit of readability before you even need to think about the perl limit ;-) Details: http://mushclient.com/pcre/pcre.html#SEC3 Regards, Christian Boltz -- > http://www.bahn.de hat auch einen Routenplaner [...] für > Fahrrad und zu Fuß, wenn die Entfernung nicht zu weit ist. Nur, was bedeutet "2. Klasse" auf dem Fahrrad? ;-) [> Bernd Brodesser und Ralf Cirksena in suse-linux] |
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-13 16:46:21
|
Corrections to previous post below, and also an additional question...
On 2013-03-13 11:43 AM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote:
> 1. only ONE new variable that contains all of the predetermined strings,
> and
Sorry, sent that too soon without proofing. This should have all read:
There are two advantages to this...
1. Only the new variable (with pre-determined defaults) is needed
instead of a new option and a new variable with just a comment
explaining how to modify this variable to include new strings or tweak
existing ones or even remove them if they are causing too many false
positives:,
So we'd now have (which can also optionally go into vacation.conf):
> # 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.
> # MODIFY AT YOUR OWN RISK!
> 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;
> }
>
> And finally, last question...
>
> What is the practical limit on the number of characters that can be
> included in this variable?
One other question, already asked in a prior email, is...
Am I correct in my comments, that BOTH the envelope sender and any other
From headers are tested? Or does this check_and_clean_from_address
function only test the envelope sender? If so (and I think it might),
then we may need to have two new variables:
$noreply_pattern_envelope
$noreply_pattern_header
and appropriate comment changes.
> So, before I enable these changes, what do you think? If this looks
> correct, I'll enable it and test it live for the next few weeks on my
> server...
>
> Thanks again Rudi!
|
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-13 16:54:03
|
On 2013-03-13 12:45 PM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote: > Corrections to previous post below, and also an additional question... > > On 2013-03-13 11:43 AM, Tanstaafl<tan...@li...> wrote: >> >1. only ONE new variable that contains all of the predetermined strings, >> >and > Sorry, sent that too soon without proofing. This should have all read: > > There are two advantages to this... Crap, did it again... The second advantage is, of course, the *simplified* 'sub check_and_clean_from_address' function... |
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-13 19:06:39
|
Ok, I got curious and went ahead and tried this, and it seems to be
working just fine.
I tested with various strings (at the beginning, in the middle and the
end of the defined variable), and everything that should have matched,
did, and everything else produced a proper vacation response...
So, I now have the following in vacation.pl:
> # $noreply_pattern 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.
> # By default, vacation messages will be sent to all senders that can not
> # definitively be determined to be email lists or other senders that should
> # not be replied to, like messages from social networking sites.
> # Defaults are: 'bounce|do-not-reply|facebook|linkedin|list-|listserv|mailer\-daemon|majordomo|myspace|noreply|owner\-|\-(owner|request|bounces)|postmaster|request\-|twitter'
> # MODIFY AT YOUR OWN RISK!
> 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 check_and_clean_from_address function:
> # Check sender against the new configurable $noreply_pattern to make sure
> # the email wasn't sent by a mailing list or some other kind of automated
> # messaging system; if it was, then we abort after appropriate logging.
> sub check_and_clean_from_address {
> my ($address) = @_;
> my $logger = get_logger();
>
> if($address =~ /^.*($noreply_pattern).*/i) {
> $logger->debug("sender '$address' contains '$1'; will not send vacation message; aborting");
> 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;
> }
Thanks again to Rudi for doing the heavy lifting and getting this working!
Charles
On 2013-03-13 12:45 PM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote:
> Corrections to previous post below, and also an additional question...
>
> On 2013-03-13 11:43 AM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote:
>> 1. only ONE new variable that contains all of the predetermined strings,
>> and
>
> Sorry, sent that too soon without proofing. This should have all read:
>
> There are two advantages to this...
>
> 1. Only the new variable (with pre-determined defaults) is needed
> instead of a new option and a new variable with just a comment
> explaining how to modify this variable to include new strings or tweak
> existing ones or even remove them if they are causing too many false
> positives:,
>
> So we'd now have (which can also optionally go into vacation.conf):
>
>> # 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.
> > # MODIFY AT YOUR OWN RISK!
>> 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;
>> }
>>
>> And finally, last question...
>>
>> What is the practical limit on the number of characters that can be
>> included in this variable?
>
> One other question, already asked in a prior email, is...
>
> Am I correct in my comments, that BOTH the envelope sender and any other
> From headers are tested? Or does this check_and_clean_from_address
> function only test the envelope sender? If so (and I think it might),
> then we may need to have two new variables:
>
> $noreply_pattern_envelope
> $noreply_pattern_header
>
> and appropriate comment changes.
>
>> So, before I enable these changes, what do you think? If this looks
>> correct, I'll enable it and test it live for the next few weeks on my
>> server...
>>
>> Thanks again Rudi!
|
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-18 20:01:16
|
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;
>> }
|
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-26 11:18:16
|
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
>
|
|
From: David G. <da...@co...> - 2013-03-26 11:37:42
|
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
|
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-26 20:47:58
Attachments:
vacation_trunk.patch
|
On 2013-03-26 7:20 AM, David Goodwin <da...@co...> wrote: > 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. Ok, great, thanks David. Actually, I see that Rudi did already merge the prior version that had both a new option, a new variable, and added a third test. I changed this to just a single new variable, and a single test. See what you think (patch attached, diffed against vacation.pl in trunk)... Thanks, Charles |
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-26 20:51:34
|
By the way... I though the vacation.pl in trunk had the new options in it for start and stop dates? I didn't see that in there anywhere... On 2013-03-26 4:47 PM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote: > On 2013-03-26 7:20 AM, David Goodwin <da...@co...> wrote: >> 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. > > Ok, great, thanks David. > > Actually, I see that Rudi did already merge the prior version that had > both a new option, a new variable, and added a third test. > > I changed this to just a single new variable, and a single test. > > See what you think (patch attached, diffed against vacation.pl in trunk)... > > Thanks, > > Charles |
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-26 20:54:43
|
On 2013-03-26 4:51 PM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote: > By the way... > > I though the vacation.pl in trunk had the new options in it for start > and stop dates? I didn't see that in there anywhere... Never mind, I see it added back in 2009... and was just an update to the sql query... |
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-26 21:10:00
Attachments:
vacation_trunk.patch
|
Crap - I added the wrong descriptive text... Here's a better version... On 2013-03-26 4:47 PM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote: > On 2013-03-26 7:20 AM, David Goodwin <da...@co...> wrote: >> 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. > > Ok, great, thanks David. > > Actually, I see that Rudi did already merge the prior version that had > both a new option, a new variable, and added a third test. > > I changed this to just a single new variable, and a single test. > > See what you think (patch attached, diffed against vacation.pl in trunk)... > > Thanks, > > Charles |
|
From: Rudi F. <rud...@go...> - 2013-03-26 21:47:05
|
Here are my changes. https://github.com/valkum/postfixadmin/commit/cdcccddbe2e1d6758cd63899e7b8973156f1412a#VIRTUAL_VACATION/vacation.pl My Version uses the same regex pattern as in prev. versions. With your Version mails from fac...@ex... won't be vacationed (is this a word??). But it could be an valid address e.g. for facebook wins and notifacations by a real person. Rudi Am Dienstag, 26. März 2013 22:09:33 schrieb Tanstaafl: > Crap - I added the wrong descriptive text... > > Here's a better version... > > On 2013-03-26 4:47 PM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote: >> On 2013-03-26 7:20 AM, David Goodwin <da...@co...> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Ok, great, thanks David. >> >> Actually, I see that Rudi did already merge the prior version that had >> both a new option, a new variable, and added a third test. >> >> I changed this to just a single new variable, and a single test. >> >> See what you think (patch attached, diffed against vacation.pl in >> trunk)... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Charles > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 |
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-03-27 12:26:23
|
On 2013-03-26 5:47 PM, Rudi Floren <rud...@go...> wrote: > Here are my changes. > https://github.com/valkum/postfixadmin/commit/cdcccddbe2e1d6758cd63899e7b8973156f1412a#VIRTUAL_VACATION/vacation.pl > My Version uses the same regex pattern as in prev. versions. > With your Version mails from fac...@ex... won't be vacationed > (is this a word??). But it could be an valid address e.g. for facebook > wins and notifacations by a real person. Excellent, much better (and shorter) descriptive text. I'm a bit too long winded sometimes, comes from too much writing step-by-step instructions for end users who have trouble finding the 'Start' button in Windows. ;) Thanks Rudi. As for the list of default strings - in my opinion, the kind of emails you describe shouldn't be responded to by the vacation script.I think only real emails, from real people (not automated notification systems, of any kind) should be replied to. Of course, I am fine if the decision is to leave the defaults as they are now, as long as I can change mine... :) Thanks again Rudi! So now the next release of postfixadmin 2.3.x will contain these changes, correct? One less thing to worry about/remember to fix after updating... |
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-05-22 15:26:28
|
Hi all, Ok, puzzled... I though this final version of Rudi's had already been merged in trunk, but I see that it has not: http://sourceforge.net/p/postfixadmin/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/VIRTUAL_VACATION/vacation.pl Rudi, or someone, can you please megre these final changes for the new vacation variable/function for testing specified strings in the From envelope & headers? Specifically, this version: https://github.com/valkum/postfixadmin/commit/cdcccddbe2e1d6758cd63899e7b8973156f1412a#VIRTUAL_VACATION/vacation.pl I'd really hate for this to fall through the cracks after all that work. Thanks, Charles On 2013-03-27 8:25 AM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote: > On 2013-03-26 5:47 PM, Rudi Floren <rud...@go...> wrote: >> Here are my changes. >> https://github.com/valkum/postfixadmin/commit/cdcccddbe2e1d6758cd63899e7b8973156f1412a#VIRTUAL_VACATION/vacation.pl >> My Version uses the same regex pattern as in prev. versions. >> With your Version mails from fac...@ex... won't be vacationed >> (is this a word??). But it could be an valid address e.g. for facebook >> wins and notifacations by a real person. > > Excellent, much better (and shorter) descriptive text. I'm a bit too > long winded sometimes, comes from too much writing step-by-step > instructions for end users who have trouble finding the 'Start' button > in Windows. ;) > > Thanks Rudi. > > As for the list of default strings - in my opinion, the kind of emails > you describe shouldn't be responded to by the vacation script.I think > only real emails, from real people (not automated notification systems, > of any kind) should be replied to. > > Of course, I am fine if the decision is to leave the defaults as they > are now, as long as I can change mine... :) > > Thanks again Rudi! > > So now the next release of postfixadmin 2.3.x will contain these > changes, correct? One less thing to worry about/remember to fix after > updating... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > |
|
From: Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> - 2013-05-30 12:00:55
|
Anyone? On 2013-05-22 11:25 AM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote: > Hi all, > > Ok, puzzled... > > I though this final version of Rudi's had already been merged in trunk, > but I see that it has not: > > http://sourceforge.net/p/postfixadmin/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/VIRTUAL_VACATION/vacation.pl > > Rudi, or someone, can you please megre these final changes for the new > vacation variable/function for testing specified strings in the From > envelope & headers? > > Specifically, this version: > > https://github.com/valkum/postfixadmin/commit/cdcccddbe2e1d6758cd63899e7b8973156f1412a#VIRTUAL_VACATION/vacation.pl > > I'd really hate for this to fall through the cracks after all that work. > > Thanks, > > Charles > > > On 2013-03-27 8:25 AM, Tanstaafl <tan...@li...> wrote: >> On 2013-03-26 5:47 PM, Rudi Floren <rud...@go...> wrote: >>> Here are my changes. >>> https://github.com/valkum/postfixadmin/commit/cdcccddbe2e1d6758cd63899e7b8973156f1412a#VIRTUAL_VACATION/vacation.pl >>> My Version uses the same regex pattern as in prev. versions. >>> With your Version mails from fac...@ex... won't be vacationed >>> (is this a word??). But it could be an valid address e.g. for facebook >>> wins and notifacations by a real person. >> >> Excellent, much better (and shorter) descriptive text. I'm a bit too >> long winded sometimes, comes from too much writing step-by-step >> instructions for end users who have trouble finding the 'Start' button >> in Windows. ;) >> >> Thanks Rudi. >> >> As for the list of default strings - in my opinion, the kind of emails >> you describe shouldn't be responded to by the vacation script.I think >> only real emails, from real people (not automated notification systems, >> of any kind) should be replied to. >> >> Of course, I am fine if the decision is to leave the defaults as they >> are now, as long as I can change mine... :) >> >> Thanks again Rudi! >> >> So now the next release of postfixadmin 2.3.x will contain these >> changes, correct? One less thing to worry about/remember to fix after >> updating... |
