I just committed an update to AbstractRedirect, Redirect and Resend to handle a new
"replyTo" value that can be used in the <recipients> and <to> parameters (and/or
returned by getRecipients() and getTo() in subclasses. The behaviour is as specified
in RFC 2822: Reply-To defaulting to From defaulting to Sender. I made the extension of
having Sender defaulting to Return-Path instead of null.
A simple auto-responder behaviour can now be done using either Redirect or Resend.
I'm asking myself if NotifySender should be modified to notify to the Reply-To address.
Regarding a full auto-responder mailet, still to be done, I suggest the following
subclassing:
AbstractRedirect
AutoResponder
DynamicAutoResponder (or any other name)
The AutoResponder mailet would have a fixed "respond" message <message> and could be
activated using the RecipientIs matcher (or any other matching logic); the
DynamicAutoResponder mailet should instead be based on a table of
user_name/message_text/activation_flag. A user could then send a message to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] with subject "on" or "off" and message text containing the personal
"respond" message.
IMO an important thing that should not be forgotten in the AutoResponder mailet is the
following: not any message should be replied to, but only those whose sender is "not
impersonal". For example, if I auto-respond to this list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), my
understanding is that automatically the "list manager" would send a probe and, after
another auto-respond, I would be kicked off the list.
As this summer I had to set up a "manual" auto-respond mechanism in config.xml for
some colleagues in my company, I wrote a matcher ("IsImpersonallySent") that was
trying to deal with that. It had the following rules:
A mail is personally sent to a recipient if
(i) has a non null reversePath and
(ii) has a non null From header and
(iii) the From header has only one address and
(iv) the From header address equals the reversePath and
(v) the ReplyTo header address (if any) equals the reversePath and
(vi) the sender is not the postmaster and
(vii) has a non null To header and
(viii) the recipient is listed in the To header and
(ix) the recipient != from the reversePath.
I'm not sure at all about those rules, but we should discuss about this topic before
writing a "full" auto-responder mailet.
Vincenzo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: giovedi 28 agosto 2003 10.15
> To: James-Dev Mailing List
> Subject: AbstractRedirect family: Reply-To handling
>
>
> For the getRecipients, the default behavior is documented by RFC (2)2822.
> It says that when sending a response, e.g., an auto-responder not
> a bounce,
> the default behavior should be the Reply-To: header(s). If they don't
> exist, the From: header(s) should be used.
>
> See: RFC 822 section 4.4.4 and RFC 2822 section 3.6.2.
>
> Vincenzo, do you have time to look at this?
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
