Matt Garretson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Along similar lines, any well-written Procmail recipe which redirects
mail typically checks for, or adds, an X-Loop header before
forwarding anything.
Yes, it's an old solution.
The crucial difference is that if one writes a bad procmail recipe,
the
On 02 Apr 2008, at 09:00, Joseph Brennan wrote:
The crucial difference is that if one writes a bad procmail recipe,
the message loops round and round until one of the MTAs considers
the hop count exceeded and bounces it to sender, but if one writes
a bad sieve rule, the message _is silently
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:27:29PM +0100, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
back to the
Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would ask that you spend some time determining how the
program could determine it is a bad rule, and provide a patch to fix this
behavior. (in short -- it's harder than you think)
A mail delivery system that loses mail is buggy. I don't need to look
at
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 02:04:29PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:27:29PM +0100, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, we had
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Brennan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would ask that you spend some time determining how the
program could determine it is a bad rule, and provide a patch to fix this
behavior. (in short -- it's harder than you
Gary Mills wrote:
Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
forwarding loop which cyrus breaks by discarding the e-mail. During
this vacation, all of the person's e-mail disappeared.
Shouldn't we
I'm all for trying fix this if someone can come up with some logic to do
so. IMO, the code is correctly processing the script as written. Here
is the current code logic:
- original message is sent to lmtpd
- message is forwarded and a record is put in deliver.db stating as much
-
Joseph Brennan wrote:
I'm all for trying fix this if someone can come up with some logic to do
so. IMO, the code is correctly processing the script as written. Here
is the current code logic:
- original message is sent to lmtpd
- message is forwarded and a record is put in deliver.db
On 31 Mar 2008, at 11:52, Ken Murchison wrote:
How can
lmtpd be intelligent enough to know that the forwarded address will
cause the message to come back?
There's no way to do that, but one could insert a header, e.g, X-
Sieve-Redirect. Maybe the value would be a random string which was
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:20PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Brennan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would ask that you spend some time determining how the
program could determine it is a bad rule, and provide
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:20PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Brennan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would ask that you spend some time determining how the
program could
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:51:17 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:20PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Brennan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 31, 2008, at 5:40 AM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
A mail delivery system that loses mail is buggy. I don't need to look
at the code to know that.
And knives that cut people are bad. No matter how they are used.
*whatever*
plonk.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:52:10AM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
Gary Mills wrote:
Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
forwarding loop which cyrus breaks by discarding the e-mail. During
this
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
forwarding loop which cyrus breaks by discarding the e-mail. During
this vacation,
--On Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:27 PM +0100 Alain Spineux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldn't we have a better solution to this problem? Some people
expect that forwarding e-mail to yourself should work; nobody expects
the messages to vanish without a trace.
You must enforce this at
Joseph Brennan wrote:
No, it is just totally wrong that an action other than 'discard' will
result in mail silently vanishing. Maybe this is what does happen, but
it is not what _should_ happen as was asked. It _should_ either go to
inbox (grounds: ignore a bad rule)
You are assuming that a
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:27:29PM +0100, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
forwarding loop which
Once again, we had somebody use the sieve facility to redirect e-mail
back to the same mailbox and then go on vacation. This sets up a
forwarding loop which cyrus breaks by discarding the e-mail. During
this vacation, all of the person's e-mail disappeared.
Shouldn't we have a better solution
20 matches
Mail list logo
