Re: [vchkpw] .quotawarn.msg header issue
On Nov 14, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Tom Collins wrote: On Nov 14, 2004, at 5:58 PM, Michael Bowe wrote: In the headers of the overquota warning, the "Return-Path:" is set to email address of the person who sent the message that caused the overquota warning to be generated. I dont know if this is really the desirable result. Probably would be better not having this field generated at all ? I've got a new version of vdelivermail that I'm planning to roll out in a vpopmail beta. I'll change it so it uses a different Return-Path than that of the original sender. Unless I hear otherwise from others, I'll just leave it out -- if someone wanted to include it, they could manually add it to the overquota warning file. How about just [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? That would let the postmaster know about the full mail box, if the message bounces, and also then gives the postmaster the choice of acting upon it. If my logic is flawed, i apologize, it is late, and i need sleep :P X-Istence
Re: [vchkpw] .quotawarn.msg header issue
On Nov 14, 2004, at 5:58 PM, Michael Bowe wrote: In the headers of the overquota warning, the "Return-Path:" is set to email address of the person who sent the message that caused the overquota warning to be generated. I dont know if this is really the desirable result. Probably would be better not having this field generated at all ? I've got a new version of vdelivermail that I'm planning to roll out in a vpopmail beta. I'll change it so it uses a different Return-Path than that of the original sender. Unless I hear otherwise from others, I'll just leave it out -- if someone wanted to include it, they could manually add it to the overquota warning file. -- Tom Collins - [EMAIL PROTECTED] QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/ Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/
[vchkpw] .quotawarn.msg header issue
In the headers of the overquota warning, the "Return-Path:" is set to email address of the person who sent the message that caused the overquota warning to be generated. I dont know if this is really the desirable result. Probably would be better not having this field generated at all ? The .quotaword.msg template already has a From and Reply-To field. Here is an example set of headers : Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:40:16 + From: Pipeline Internet Postmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pipeline Internet Customer:; Subject: Mail quota warning Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael.
