Re: bug in qmail-autoresponder version 0.92 ?
'morning! On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 10:47:05PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote: On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote: Currently trying qmail-autoresponder (http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-autoresponder/) : Great! PS: the thing with "-s" is ok, but I like the "original" vacation feature with $SUBJECT in _BODY_ much better : do you plan to add it to qmail-autorespond ? Reluctantly, yes. Would something like "%S" work for you? That would greatly simplify the parsing logic. Then '%SUBJECT' ? (it should be understable by "normal users", via webinterface). Otherwise would '%S' also be ok, I can also do some parsing/search+replace in php if necessary. PPS: if there is a From: or a Reply-To: field, should the autoresponder respond to this address ? I think not. Responding to the envelope sender is pretty much the only safe thing to do, and it neatly avoids all the trouble one would get into to properly parse an address field. Right, these fields are not se easy to parse... Ok, I think it's already pretty nice this way! Now just have to find if and how it works with the current php-vmailmgr-interface. I still need the perl suidwrapper to be able to write the autoresponder file, but there is probably another way to do it... Will then release a new omail-admin version ( http://omail.omnis.ch/ ). Regards, Olivier -- _ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland PGP signature
Re: bug in qmail-autoresponder version 0.92 ?
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:16:35AM +0200, Olivier M. wrote: PS: the thing with "-s" is ok, but I like the "original" vacation feature with $SUBJECT in _BODY_ much better : do you plan to add it to qmail-autorespond ? Reluctantly, yes. Would something like "%S" work for you? That would greatly simplify the parsing logic. Then '%SUBJECT' ? Yes. With two characters, the scanning logic for if the tag crosses a page is fairly simple. With 8, it's nasty. I don't care if it's "%S", "$S", "**", or whatever. One character is trivial. Two is simple. Larger than two gets nasty. -- Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://em.ca/~bruceg/ PGP signature
Re: bug in qmail-autoresponder version 0.92 ?
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote: Currently trying qmail-autoresponder (http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-autoresponder/) : Great! Docs says: - Limits rate of automatic responses (defaults to a maximum of one message every hour). well, I always get _two_ messages, shouldn't it be : /* If the user's count is already over the max, * don't record any more. */ if(++count = max) return 0; You are right. The logic worked before the rewrite for 0.92, and I guess I missed that one. The tests also failed to catch this. I'll make sure they work this time. PS: the thing with "-s" is ok, but I like the "original" vacation feature with $SUBJECT in _BODY_ much better : do you plan to add it to qmail-autorespond ? Reluctantly, yes. Would something like "%S" work for you? That would greatly simplify the parsing logic. PPS: if there is a From: or a Reply-To: field, should the autoresponder respond to this address ? I think not. Responding to the envelope sender is pretty much the only safe thing to do, and it neatly avoids all the trouble one would get into to properly parse an address field. -- Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://em.ca/~bruceg/ PGP signature
