5.3.0-git
2014-11-23

[#5974] Inconsistent vacation excludes
Summary Inconsistent vacation excludes
Queue Ingo
Queue Version HEAD
Type Enhancement
State Assigned
Priority 2. Medium
Owners jan (at) horde (dot) org
Requester jan (at) horde (dot) org
Created 2007-12-07 (2543 days ago)
Due
Updated 2008-07-28 (2309 days ago)
Assigned 2007-12-14 (2536 days ago)
Resolved
Milestone
Patch No

History
2008-07-28 13:05:01 gimili17 (at) gmail (dot) com Comment #6 Reply to this comment
I have a bunch of rules to sort mail.  With the vacation rule at the 
top as soon as it is enabled the other maildrop rules do not get 
processed.  Perhaps the vacation rule needs to be at the very bottom 
or the script changed slightly?
2008-07-28 12:52:03 gimili17 (at) gmail (dot) com Comment #5 Reply to this comment
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.
I think using the spam header would do more good than harm?  Perhaps 
in the mean time there could be a warning that the vacation will go to 
all lists and spam and a suggestion to create and enable a spam rule 
and move it before the vacation rule?  I know I would have appreciated 
that information.  I already have settings in sam and in a global 
.mailfilter but vacation replies were still sent to spam which I did 
not expect.



If the spam rule should be "*before*" the vacation rule then why not 
make that the default?  Thanks.
2007-12-14 01:05:29 Jan Schneider State ⇒ Assigned
Taken from Horde DevelopersHorde Developers
Assigned to Jan Schneider
 
2007-12-10 18:12:00 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?

[Show Quoted Text - 10 lines]
Woof.
2007-12-10 11:24:33 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 :-)
2007-12-08 04:13:34 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.
2007-12-07 15:09:39 Jan Schneider Assigned to Horde DevelopersHorde Developers
 
2007-12-07 15:09:28 Jan Schneider Comment #1
State ⇒ Feedback
Queue ⇒ Ingo
Summary ⇒ Inconsistent vacation excludes
Type ⇒ Enhancement
Priority ⇒ 2. Medium
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)