Sieve question: Rewriting from using variables (ccsend issues)

[Ian Evans]

As a journalist, I deal with a lot of PR companies that use constant contact.
For years, I've built up a nice sieve filter that sports these people into my
PR folder.

I guess to help with dkim/SPF issues, Constant Contact has started rewriting
the from header to the sender's address rewritten to end with a ccsend domain.
The sender's actual email address is now in the reply-to header. This has
resulted in all my PR emails ending up in the main inbox.

Rather than rewrite hundreds of rules, I asked (foolishly?) ChatGPT  if there
was a way to check for ccsend in the from and then use the reply-to as the
from.

This is what it came up with and this would be the first rule in the sieve
file:

#Many PR companies use ccsend for lists. Check if headers contain "ccsend" and
#then use reply-to for rules
if allof (header :contains "from" "ccsend") {
    # Set "Reply-To" as "From" address
    set "from" "${reply-to}";
}

Before I put this into production, will this work? Do the rest of the rules go
inside the last curly bracket or after it?

Thanks for any advice.
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org

Re: sieve question

[@lbutlr]

On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:54, Ralph Seichter  wrote:
> * mj:
> Our autoreply message reads: "Your email has not been read nor
>> forwarded", which is also the case, forcing the sender to take action.
> 
> No, it does not. An auto-reply message, even if it is actually read by
> the sender, can be ignored without penalty. An MTA rejection puts the
> ball into the sender's court because the message has never been accepted
> by the recipient's MX.

Yep, that was the point I was trying to make upthread, but you stated it better.

> By the way, a rejection is "legally safe", while
> your catch-all-and-let-messages-rot approach is not, in case you have
> not considered that.

Good point, I haven’t thought of that. That, alone, is a reason not to do this.

> Of course, you can do as you please, but that does not change the facts
> and mechanics involved.





-- 
@notallmikaylas Any man who is genuinely scared that feminism means
female dominance pictures a world where men are treated like
women. Think about that.

Re: sieve question

[mj]

On 4/21/20 7:54 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote:

No, it does not. An auto-reply message, even if it is actually read by
the sender, can be ignored without penalty. An MTA rejection puts the
ball into the sender's court because the message has never been accepted
by the recipient's MX. By the way, a rejection is "legally safe", while
your catch-all-and-let-messages-rot approach is not, in case you have
not considered that.

Of course, you can do as you please, but that does not change the facts
and mechanics involved.


Thank you for your feedback, we will take it into consideration.

MJ

Re: sieve question

[Ralph Seichter]

* mj:

> Our autoreply message reads: "Your email has not been read nor
> forwarded", which is also the case, forcing the sender to take action.

No, it does not. An auto-reply message, even if it is actually read by
the sender, can be ignored without penalty. An MTA rejection puts the
ball into the sender's court because the message has never been accepted
by the recipient's MX. By the way, a rejection is "legally safe", while
your catch-all-and-let-messages-rot approach is not, in case you have
not considered that.

Of course, you can do as you please, but that does not change the facts
and mechanics involved.

-Ralph

Re: sieve question

[mj]

Hi all,

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

The idea behind the catch-all mailbox is basically to have a 
transitional period between now and the nullmx config we did not know 
about. (thanks for mentioning that, we will do it!)


Our autoreply message reads: "Your email has not been read nor 
forwarded", which is also the case, forcing the sender to take action.
It is just kept in a simple catch-all mailbox, for a couple of 
weeks/months, in case we discover that something important was 
accidentally still sent to the old domain.


And yes, that would be neither fish nor flesh for the time being, but 
only during the transitional period. Afterwards we will put the nullmx 
config in place.


Thanks for again for all your thoughts: appreciated.

MJ

On 4/21/20 4:02 AM, LuKreme wrote:

On Apr 20, 2020, at 19:13, @lbutlr  wrote:


The other thing you can do is NOMX the old domain.


Sorry, nullmx is what I meant.

Btw, I think this is the best solution.

Sent from my iPhone

Re: sieve question

[Remo Mattei]

I do agree with that. It depends on what he wants to do and how to handle the 
old domain stuff.

Remo

> On Apr 20, 2020, at 18:13, @lbutlr  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 20 Apr 2020, at 04:27, mj  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ralph!
>> 
>> Thanks for your reply!
>> 
>> On 4/20/20 12:19 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
>>> I suggest you don't use Sieve for this, but simply configure Postfix
>>> to reject messages to @old.domain.com with the desired message. MTA
>>> rejections signal clearly that the message has not been delivered, and
>>> you can also include an URL pointing to a web page with more detailed
>>> information.
>> 
>> However, this means those emails are not actually delivered anymore.
> 
> Yes, with a rejection message that informs why the message was not delivered. 
> This is the best thing you can do as it will force people to actually change 
> the email.
> 
> If you delay this by doing something temporary, all you are doing is delaying 
> it. Once you cut off the old email you’ll be in the exact same situation you 
> are in right now, as very few people will update email addresses.
> 
> If all you do now is autrespond with an automated message, most people will 
> never see that message. And if your auto-responder is paying the message is 
> not read or forwarded, what are you gaining? It is much better for the sender 
> to get an actual error which they are much more likely to see.
> 
> The other thing you can do is NOMX the old domain.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on

Re: sieve question

[LuKreme]

On Apr 20, 2020, at 19:13, @lbutlr  wrote:
> 
> The other thing you can do is NOMX the old domain.

Sorry, nullmx is what I meant. 

Btw, I think this is the best solution.

Sent from my iPhone

Re: sieve question

[@lbutlr]

> On 20 Apr 2020, at 04:27, mj  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ralph!
> 
> Thanks for your reply!
> 
> On 4/20/20 12:19 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
>> I suggest you don't use Sieve for this, but simply configure Postfix
>> to reject messages to @old.domain.com with the desired message. MTA
>> rejections signal clearly that the message has not been delivered, and
>> you can also include an URL pointing to a web page with more detailed
>> information.
> 
> However, this means those emails are not actually delivered anymore.

Yes, with a rejection message that informs why the message was not delivered. 
This is the best thing you can do as it will force people to actually change 
the email.

If you delay this by doing something temporary, all you are doing is delaying 
it. Once you cut off the old email you’ll be in the exact same situation you 
are in right now, as very few people will update email addresses.

If all you do now is autrespond with an automated message, most people will 
never see that message. And if your auto-responder is paying the message is not 
read or forwarded, what are you gaining? It is much better for the sender to 
get an actual error which they are much more likely to see.

The other thing you can do is NOMX the old domain.



-- 
in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on

Re: sieve question

[Remo Mattei]

Well, I do not use postfix, but qmail. I would however, create an autorepond 
telling them the new address and then fwd the old address to the new one. 

But nothing to do with sieve, it’s at the SMTP level. 

Remo

> On Apr 20, 2020, at 08:40, Ralph Seichter  wrote:
> 
> * mj:
> 
>> this means those emails are not actually delivered anymore.
> 
> Sure. That's how I interpreted your notification text "This message is
> sent automatically, and your message has NOT been read nor forwarded."
> If the message is not being read, why accept it in the first place?
> 
>> For now, I would like them to *be* delivered, so we still have them in
>> case something important comes in.
> 
> Speaking for myself: If I send email to a business partner, that email
> can be a) rejected, so I know I'll have to find another way to reach the
> intended recipient, or it can be b) accepted, in which case I expect it
> to be read/processed.
> 
> What you describe seems to be neither fish nor flesh to me. Using MTA
> rejects leaves no doubt that the *sender* has to become active. As I
> understand it, that is you goal, is it not?
> 
> -Ralph

Re: sieve question

[Ralph Seichter]

* mj:

> this means those emails are not actually delivered anymore.

Sure. That's how I interpreted your notification text "This message is
sent automatically, and your message has NOT been read nor forwarded."
If the message is not being read, why accept it in the first place?

> For now, I would like them to *be* delivered, so we still have them in
> case something important comes in.

Speaking for myself: If I send email to a business partner, that email
can be a) rejected, so I know I'll have to find another way to reach the
intended recipient, or it can be b) accepted, in which case I expect it
to be read/processed.

What you describe seems to be neither fish nor flesh to me. Using MTA
rejects leaves no doubt that the *sender* has to become active. As I
understand it, that is you goal, is it not?

-Ralph

Re: sieve question

[mj]

Hi Ralph!

Thanks for your reply!

On 4/20/20 12:19 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote:

I suggest you don't use Sieve for this, but simply configure Postfix
to reject messages to @old.domain.com with the desired message. MTA
rejections signal clearly that the message has not been delivered, and
you can also include an URL pointing to a web page with more detailed
information.


However, this means those emails are not actually delivered anymore.

For now, I would like them to *be* delivered, so we still have them in 
case something important comes in.


Your postfix suggestion would be my next step, in a couple of months 
perhaps.


Hopefully someone has a suggestion for my sieve script.

Thanks again,
MJ

Re: sieve question

[Ralph Seichter]

* mj:

> Can anyone suggest what to do here?

I suggest you don't use Sieve for this, but simply configure Postfix
to reject messages to @old.domain.com with the desired message. MTA
rejections signal clearly that the message has not been delivered, and
you can also include an URL pointing to a web page with more detailed
information.

-Ralph

sieve question

[mj]

Hi,

We are trying to auto-reply to emails that still use one of our old 
domains. To do this, I have setup a catch-all mailbox for anything sent 
to that old domain using postfix virtual:


@old.domain.com  catch-...@new.domain.com

Then I defined a sieve script for catch-...@new.domain.com, like:


require ["vacation"];
if allof ( not exists ["list-help", "list-unsubscribe", "list-subscribe", "list-owner", "list-post", 
"list-archive", "list-id", "Mailing-List"] )

{ vacation text:
This message is sent automatically, and your message has NOT been read nor 
forwarded.

Please update your addressbooks!

All the best! :-)
.
;
}


However, sieve never sends any auto-reply, because it logs:


discarding vacation response for implicitly delivered message; no
known (envelope) recipient address found in message headers
(recipient=, and no additional `:addresses'
are specified)
I have googled this, but adding :addresses in this case will not work, 
as we are trying to answer (basically) emails sent to any email 
addresses sent to that domain, and thus I cannot define specific :addresses


Can anyone suggest what to do here?

Thanks and stay healthy!

MJ

Re: Sieve question

[@lbutlr via dovecot]

On 3 Jul 2019, at 01:28, Stephan Bosch via dovecot  wrote:
> On 03/07/2019 04:44, @lbutlr via dovecot wrote:
>> I have the following in my active sieve file, and there are no errors logged.
>> 
>> 
>> if header :contains "to" "+root" {
>>setflag "\\Seen";
>>fileinto :create "root";
>>stop;
>> }
>> 
>> The message is put in .root, bit is not marked as seen.
>> 
>> Is the default action to put mail in a folder matching the extension taking 
>> precedence?
> 
> That should work. What version is this (output from `dovecot -`n`)? There 
> have been some bugs with flags in the recent history.

# 2.3.6 (7eab80676): /usr/local/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# Pigeonhole version 0.5.6 (92dc263a)
# OS: FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p10 i386  

It seems ti be working now. Does dovecot need to refresh the sieve rules 
periodically? (It has not been restarted recently., so it’s not that).

Re: Sieve question

[Stephan Bosch via dovecot]

On 03/07/2019 04:44, @lbutlr via dovecot wrote:

I have the following in my active sieve file, and there are no errors logged.


if header :contains "to" "+root" {
setflag "\\Seen";
fileinto :create "root";
stop;
}

The message is put in .root, bit is not marked as seen.

Is the default action to put mail in a folder matching the extension taking 
precedence?


That should work. What version is this (output from `dovecot -`n`)? 
There have been some bugs with flags in the recent history.


Regards,

Stephan.

Sieve question

[@lbutlr via dovecot]

I have the following in my active sieve file, and there are no errors logged.


if header :contains "to" "+root" {
   setflag "\\Seen";
   fileinto :create "root";
   stop;
}

The message is put in .root, bit is not marked as seen.

Is the default action to put mail in a folder matching the extension taking 
precedence?

Re: Sieve question

[@lbutlr]

On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:18 AM, A.L.E.C  wrote:
> require ["copy"]
> if header :contains “from” “t...@example.com” {
>   redirect :copy “us...@example.com”;
>   redirect “us...@example.com”;
> }



Ah, right, that makes sense. Thanks.

-- 
Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

Re: Sieve question

[Stephan Bosch]

Op 10-2-2016 om 10:30 schreef @lbutlr:

On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:18 AM, A.L.E.C  wrote:

require ["copy"]
if header :contains “from” “t...@example.com” {
   redirect :copy “us...@example.com”;
   redirect “us...@example.com”;
}



Ah, right, that makes sense. Thanks.


The copy extension is not needed here. The redirect action is explicit 
and will not be affected by cancellation of the implicit keep in the 
absence of ":copy".


Just keep in mind that the total number of redirects is limited (subject 
to configuration).


Regards,

Stephan.

Sieve question

[@lbutlr]

Is it possible to use redirect in a sieve to redirect to multiple addresses?

if header :contains “from” “t...@example.com” {
  redirect “us...@example.com,us...@example.com”;
}

I thought this would work, But I am seeing a “redirect address is invalid: not 
a single addres [sic] (found ‘,’).


-- 
I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is having.

Re: Sieve question

[A.L.E.C]

On 02/10/2016 02:18 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
> Is it possible to use redirect in a sieve to redirect to multiple addresses?
> 
> if header :contains “from” “t...@example.com” {
>   redirect “us...@example.com,us...@example.com”;
> }

I never tried, but according to RFC redirect argument is supposed to be
an email address, so even a list is not allowed, but you may try

redirect [“us...@example.com","us...@example.com”];

Anyway, there's "copy" extension. So, this should work:

require ["copy"]
if header :contains “from” “t...@example.com” {
   redirect :copy “us...@example.com”;
   redirect “us...@example.com”;
}

-- 
Aleksander 'A.L.E.C' Machniak
Kolab Groupware Developer[http://kolab.org]
Roundcube Webmail Developer  [http://roundcube.net]
---
PGP: 19359DC1 @@ GG: 2275252 @@ WWW: http://alec.pl

Re: [Dovecot] Sieve question

[Stephan Bosch]

Op 13-6-2011 4:41, Dhaval Patel schreef:

--
require fileinto;
if header :contains X-Spam-Flag YES {
   fileinto spam;
}
--

My first question is, where is this global script? Do I configure the
sieve_global_dir = /etc/dovecot/sieve/? What about he filename?


http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve/Dovecot#Executing_Multiple_Scripts_Sequentially

Use sieve_before. Script name is mainly important when a directory is 
specified, in which case it must end with .sieve. The directory/file can 
be located anywhere you like.



Most users will not need any additional rules. There are some users that do and
I am having a difficult time figuring out how it would be setup. My second
question is the following. Is there a way in the global script to check if there
is a file called /etc/dovecot/sieve/username or
/home/vmail/username/personal_sieve_script and include it?
Not like that. There is an include extension, but that is not able to do 
optional includes (maybe it should). You can use multiscript support for 
this too. Make the sieve_before setting dependent on the user, make it 
point to two alternative directories, each containing (symlinks to) a 
different set of scripts.



I was using maildrop before this and procmail before that so I apologies for
sounding stupid if this is not how Sieve scripts work.

I am by no means tied the methods I describe above. If anyone knows of a better
way to achieve what I am trying to do, I would appreciate if you let me know of
it.


Regards,

Stephan.

[Dovecot] Sieve question

[Dhaval Patel]

I have successfully setup Postfix - Dovecot with virtual users and spam
filtering with spamassassin. Now the last remaining part is for the user defined
rules. Let me describe my environment and what I am trying to achieve.

I have Postfix setup to call spamc and deliver to Dovecot according to the
master.cf line below.

--
dovecot   unix  -   n   n   -   -   pipe
   flags=DRhu user=vmail:vmail argv=/usr/bin/spamc -u vmail -e
/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver -d ${recipient}
--

The emails get checked by Spamassassin and are delivered to the users's mailbox
(/home/vmail/username). I use an actual username (dhav) and not email address
(dha...@example.com). Things are working fine with that.

From reading http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve I see that Sieve can do global
and user specified filtering. So I am planning to put the following rule into
the global script so spammy emails go to the user's INBOX.spam folder.

--
require fileinto;
if header :contains X-Spam-Flag YES {
  fileinto spam;
}
--

My first question is, where is this global script? Do I configure the
sieve_global_dir = /etc/dovecot/sieve/? What about he filename?

Most users will not need any additional rules. There are some users that do and
I am having a difficult time figuring out how it would be setup. My second
question is the following. Is there a way in the global script to check if there
is a file called /etc/dovecot/sieve/username or
/home/vmail/username/personal_sieve_script and include it?


I was using maildrop before this and procmail before that so I apologies for
sounding stupid if this is not how Sieve scripts work.

I am by no means tied the methods I describe above. If anyone knows of a better
way to achieve what I am trying to do, I would appreciate if you let me know of
it.


Thanks,
Dhaval

[Dovecot] Sieve question

[Leander S.]

Hi,

is there a possibility to give the if cases a AND / OR sensetivity?


if header :comparator i;ascii-casemap :contains X-Spam-Flag YES  
*AND NO *X-Amavis-Alert INFECTED{

 fileinto Spam;
 stop;
} elsif header :comparator i;ascii-casemap :contains X-Amavis-Alert 
INFECTED {

 fileinto Virus;
 stop;
} else {
  keep;
}



I know - I could turn the two cases arround and it would sort in Virus 
before Spam which would prevent Virusmails going into the Spam folder 
accidently but I'm just intested for some other cases.



Thanks

Re: [Dovecot] Sieve question

[Perry E. Metzger]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:38:34 +0200 Leander S.
leander.schae...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Hi,
 
 is there a possibility to give the if cases a AND / OR sensetivity?

You know about anyof/allof in the sieve language, yes?

-- 
Perry E. Metzgerpe...@piermont.com

Re: [Dovecot] Sieve question

[Thomas Harold]

On 7/7/2009 1:59 PM, CJ Keist wrote:


If there is a separate sieve mailing list let me know. But have 
question if someone else has done this or not.


Right now I have web form people use to setup their vacation replies 
using Sieve (1.1.6).  The form alows them to set what they want their 
reply address to be, whether to send the reply once, weekly or 
bi-weekly.  I would like to setup another option to let them set the 
date in which to de-active the vacation replies automatically.  Right 
now they have to remember to log back into the form to turn off the 
vacation reply.

   Has anyone set something like this up?




From what I've seen of the sieve RFCs, there's no provision for setting 
this.  (Or has that been added?)


I also run into this request regularly with my users who want their 
vacation replies to turn on at 2pm Friday and turn off at 9am Monday.  
Which currently means that someone has to babysit the sieve scripts.


Ideally, it would be an option to the vacation element (i.e. start 
time and end time).  The reason that a start/end time would be useful 
is in the case of where someone wants to setup their vacation replies 
ahead of time, and have them automatically enable/disable for the 
specified time period.


(apologies for continuing an old thread, but I'm curious)

Re: [Dovecot] Sieve question

[Pascal Volk]

On 10/16/2009 08:04 PM Thomas Harold wrote:
 …
 Ideally, it would be an option to the vacation element (i.e. start 
 time and end time).  The reason that a start/end time would be useful 
 is in the case of where someone wants to setup their vacation replies 
 ahead of time, and have them automatically enable/disable for the 
 specified time period.
 
 (apologies for continuing an old thread, but I'm curious)

Not yet tested, but it should be possible with the 'Date and Index
Extensions'¹ for Sieve. From the Sieve NEWS file:

v0.1.12 21-08-2009 Stephan Bosch stephan AT rename-it DOT nl
…
+ Implemented the new date extension. This allows matching against date
  values in header fields and the current date at the time of script
  evaluation.

Regards,
Pascal
--
1 = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5260
-- 
The trapper recommends today: face1e55.0928...@localdomain.org

Re: [Dovecot] Sieve question

[Pascal Volk]

On 07/07/2009 07:59 PM CJ Keist wrote:
 If there is a separate sieve mailing list let me know. But have question 
 if someone else has done this or not.
 
 Right now I have web form people use to setup their vacation replies 
 using Sieve (1.1.6).  The form alows them to set what they want their 
 reply address to be, whether to send the reply once, weekly or 
 bi-weekly.  I would like to setup another option to let them set the 
 date in which to de-active the vacation replies automatically.  Right 
 now they have to remember to log back into the form to turn off the 
 vacation reply.
 Has anyone set something like this up?

The users are on holiday while the script is active? During this time
the users does not login to imap/pop3?
And you are using sieve only for vacation replies?

If you answered all questions with 'yes', read on.

Save the sieve script under a specific name, e.g.
~/sieve/vacation-reply.sieve. Use a post-loging Script, which tells
the user she/he has to deactivate the sieve script in order to use
the imap/pop3 server.
For further information see: http://wiki.dovecot.org/PostLoginScripting


Regards,
Pascal
-- 
The trapper recommends today: deadbeef.0919...@localdomain.org

[Dovecot] Sieve question

[CJ Keist]

If there is a separate sieve mailing list let me know. But have question 
if someone else has done this or not.


Right now I have web form people use to setup their vacation replies 
using Sieve (1.1.6).  The form alows them to set what they want their 
reply address to be, whether to send the reply once, weekly or 
bi-weekly.  I would like to setup another option to let them set the 
date in which to de-active the vacation replies automatically.  Right 
now they have to remember to log back into the form to turn off the 
vacation reply.

   Has anyone set something like this up?


--
C. J. Keist Email: cj.ke...@colostate.edu
UNIX/Network ManagerPhone: 970-491-0630
Engineering Network ServicesFax:   970-491-5569
College of Engineering, CSU
Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1301

All I want is a chance to prove 'Money can't buy happiness'