On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, John Horne wrote:
> The reason being that since the vacation service
> is provided by autoreply which in turn updates the once/log files, all mail
> for vacation users must go to the master in order for these files to be
> updated. If we didn't then it is possible for people to receive 2 notices
> that someone is away since mail could arrive at either mailhub - this was not
> wanted.
1. Put the files on a fileserver that both slave and master can see.
Works for us. (Of course, that's something that needs planning.)
2. Short of that, let me see. You want the state to be this:
If the slave handles a message, it wants to send a copy to the master
that says "if there's a vacation message set up, do the vacation thing,
but don't deliver the message", and you are happy to do this by adding
a header.
Hmm. Why don't you just allow normal vacation processing on the master,
and then throw away any message containing the X-header? What have I
missed? [This means that messages get delivered, but no vacation
processing is done, when the master is down.]
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
