[ I stripped the CC to the unknown person ] On 2009-03-10 at 10:46 -0700, Doug Jolley wrote: > When using the vacation facility of an Exim Filter, the envelope > address of a vacation response is the null user. This is a documented > feature intended to help prevent runaway message sequences. I am > noticing that more and more SMTP hosts are testing incoming mail with > an envelope address of the null user to determine if they are bounces > and quarantining any such messages that are not bounces. Presumably > this is an anti-spam effort. Obviously, this creates a problem for > incoming vacation messages. I'm just wondering whose problem this is. > Is this an Exim problem; or, are the receiving SMTP servers > misbehaving by quarantining these incoming messages?
The whole point of a vacation message is that it's a friendly message for humans and should not be in a structured report format. The remote side is being overly restrictive in what they define as a valid auto-reply; "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied" in the vacation response (added automatically by Exim) *should* be enough. But fighting this will be a losing battle. If you're feeling pugnacious, then: RFC 3834 Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail. RFC 5230 Sieve Email Filtering: Vacation Extension Even if you're not using Sieve, its recommendations on how user-controlled vacation responses should be constructed still carry weight. -Phil -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
