Author: robert rotman Date: To: Greg A. Woods CC: exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or return_path?
> > No, they shouldn't be sent with an empty sender address. They should be
> sent as if from the mailbox they are responding for. You do not want to
> confuse them with bounces from a mail transport.
>
> *BSD vacation has always depended on the fact that vacation messages
> will have a "Precedence:" header which will prevent it from replying to
> its own messages, and more importantly those of other vacation instances
> too!
>
> Vacation programs probably shouldn't respond to any other kind of
> autoresponder either. However with the exception of a mail transport,
> all such avoidance must be through the de facto standard (contrary to
> what the *informational* RFC 2076 claims!) "Precedence:" header, or
> through the fact that the message is not directly addressed to the
> mailbox being responded to (i.e. in a "to" or "cc" header). Mail
> transport responses (aka bounces) are of course avoided by not
> responding to messages from "MAILER-DAEMON" (also just a de facto
> standard used to represent the null return path).
>
how can you insert a header with exim?
headers_add = "Precedence: bulk" - in the vacation transport or director
or both does nothing.
even tested it with -d9.
