Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:58:25 -0400 http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/5974 Inconsistent vacation excludes 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) Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:09:28 -0500 http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/5974#t39585 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. Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:13:34 -0500 http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/5974#t39602 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 :-) Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:24:33 -0500 http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/5974#t39657 > 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. Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:12:00 -0500 http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/5974#t39683