[#5974] Inconsistent vacation excludes
Summary Inconsistent vacation excludes
Queue Ingo
Queue Version HEAD
Type Enhancement
State Assigned
Priority 2. Medium
Owners Jan Schneider <jan (at) horde (dot) org>
Requester Jan Schneider <jan (at) horde (dot) org>
Created 12/07/2007 (156 days ago)
Due
Updated 12/13/2007 (150 days ago)
Assigned 12/13/2007 (150 days ago)
Resolved
Attachments
Milestone
Patch

History
12/13/2007 Jan Schneider State ⇒ Assigned
Taken from Horde DevelopersHorde Developers
Assigned to Jan Schneider
 
12/10/2007 Chuck Hagenbuch Comment #4 Reply to this comment
> I should have added my own opinion. :)

:)

> I'm against using the Spam header because different spam filters use
> different headers and with Ingo it's really easy to have a spam
> filter rule *before* the vacation rule, so this is redundant. In the
> worst case it even applies a different spam rule than what the user
> usually does.

That makes sense. Everything but spam rules, then?

> Some additional information: procmail's FROM_DAEMON is a shortcut for:
> (^(Mailing-List:|Precedence:.*(junk|bulk|list)|To: Multiple
>        recipients of |(((Resent-)?(From|Sender)|X-Envelope-From):|>?From
>        )([^>]*[^(.%@a-z0-9])?(Post(ma?(st(e?r)?|n)|office)|(send)?Mail(er)?
>        |daemon|m(mdf|ajordomo)|n?uucp|LIST(SERV|proc)|NETSERV|o(wner|ps)
>        |r(e(quest|sponse)|oot)|b(ounce|bs\.smtp)|echo|mirror|s(erv(ices?|er)
>        |mtp(error)?|ystem)|A(dmin(istrator)?|MMGR|utoanswer))(([^).!:a-
>        z0-9][-_a-z0-9]*)?[%@>\t ][^<)]*(\(.*\).*)?)?$([^>]|$)))
>
> Author's comment: how's that for a regular expression :-)

Woof.
12/10/2007 Jan Schneider Comment #3 Reply to this comment
I should have added my own opinion. :)

I'm against using the Spam header because different spam filters use different headers and with Ingo it's really easy to have a spam filter rule *before* the vacation rule, so this is redundant. In the worst case it even applies a different spam rule than what the user usually does.

Some additional information: procmail's FROM_DAEMON is a shortcut for:
(^(Mailing-List:|Precedence:.*(junk|bulk|list)|To: Multiple
       recipients of |(((Resent-)?(From|Sender)|X-Envelope-From):|>?From
       )([^>]*[^(.%@a-z0-9])?(Post(ma?(st(e?r)?|n)|office)|(send)?Mail(er)?
       |daemon|m(mdf|ajordomo)|n?uucp|LIST(SERV|proc)|NETSERV|o(wner|ps)
       |r(e(quest|sponse)|oot)|b(ounce|bs\.smtp)|echo|mirror|s(erv(ices?|er)
       |mtp(error)?|ystem)|A(dmin(istrator)?|MMGR|utoanswer))(([^).!:a-
       z0-9][-_a-z0-9]*)?[%@>\t ][^<)]*(\(.*\).*)?)?$([^>]|$)))

Author's comment: how's that for a regular expression :-)
12/07/2007 Chuck Hagenbuch Comment #2 Reply to this comment
I don't see anything wrong with any of those excludes, so unless I'm missing something I'd vote for the combination of all of those.
12/07/2007 Jan Schneider Assigned to Horde DevelopersHorde Developers
 
12/07/2007 Jan Schneider Comment #1
Queue ⇒ Ingo
Priority ⇒ 2. Medium
State ⇒ Feedback
Type ⇒ Enhancement
Summary ⇒ Inconsistent vacation excludes
Reply to this comment
We currently implement vacation excludes differently in all drivers. We should agree on a common policy for all drivers.

imap: doesn't have vacation at all

sieve: excludes list-help", "list-unsubscribe", "list-subscribe", "list-owner", "list-post", "list-archive", "list-id" headers and "precedence" headers if "list", "bulk". It used to to exclude if X-Spam-Flag header is YES. I removed that before I noticed that we are so inconsistent.

procmail: excludes X-Spam-Flag: YES (introduced with the timed vacation patch) and FROM_DAEMON

maildrop: doesn't exclude anything. ticket #5912 add excludes for List-Id:|Prececence:.*(bulk|junk|list)|From:.*(postmaster|administrator)