also sprach Steffen Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.08.1458 +0200]: > > until I discovered how limited sieve's vacation module is. Most > > importantly: it's hardcoded to use the Return-Path of a message, but > > in this very case, I need to actually use the address in the from > > What's the reason of not using Return-Path?
The mailbox receives mail sent from a web interface not in our control. We know From is verified because else the user could not have used the web interface, but Return-Path is always set to the person running the web service. > When it is missing, you can search the archives for a patch of > mine, that uses the -f argument in this case. -> And the reply, > why NOT to use From for sending replies ;-) I am aware of reasons not to use them. In this case it's a non-public address used only by the web interface. > > Given that mail is delivered by the Dovecot LDA, is there any > > way to make deliver pass it off to e.g. procmail in such a way > > that $HOME is set to /srv/vmail/domain.org/localpart, so that > > procmail can find the .procmailrc? > > Of course, you could patch Dovecot LDA. It is rather straight > forward. As a long-time Debian user, I'd really rather not patch anything. :) > Another idea is to setup your MTA to deliver each mail to two > maildrops, traditionally this is called ".forward" files, because > in sendmail you can create a file ".forward" in the user's homedir > and put all the mail forwards there, e.g.: Virtual users don't really have home directories and postfix's virtual delivery agent doesn't call them anyway. But yes, if dovecot's LDA would honour something like .forward files, I'd be happy. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] "no problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it." -- c. schulz spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
