The technique used to add vacations I think is hokey pokey. I have my code
bundled for the vacation implementation I wrote. It uses a seperate
vacation.c and templates. The postmaster can add them for all users or the
user can log in and add,modify,delete his own.
You can check it our at:
http://mail.checkoutisle.net/admin/qmailadmin
Username: mailadmin
domain: checkoutisle.net
passwd: test
To try as a user:
username: test
domain: checkoutisle.net
passwd: test
---
Brad Dameron
Network Account Executive
TSCNet Inc.
www.tscnet.com
Silverdale, WA.
1-888-8TSCNET
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Shupp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 9:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ken Jones
Subject: seperation of autoresponders and vacation
Ken,
With the addition of your modify user code, I'm starting to think that it
would make sense to separate autoresponder functionality from vacation
functionality. For example:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] logs in creates an autoresponder for [EMAIL PROTECTED], who
is also a pop user. Then user [EMAIL PROTECTED] logs in and selects "show
redirect", and sees the contents of the .qmail-test file. (Try it, it does
this)
I know this probably wouldn't happen much, but rather than spend time
cleaning up the "show redirect" part to detect if the .qmail-test file
contains redirect or autoresponder info, maybe it would make more sense to
go back to your original philosophy: autoresponders should NOT have an owner
address that is the same as the autoresponder address. Since a vacation
message solution is already in place, this shouldn't be a problem for
anyone.
Also, now that "modify user" handles forwards, perhaps when non postmaster
users log in, they shouldn't see "show redirect" anymore. Just "modify
user". Couldn't the redirect override the forward settings created by the
modify user page?
I'll be happy to provide the patches for these two things...
Thoughts?
-Bill
