On 30-Mar-01 at 13:10:33 Philip Hazel wrote:
> 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.)
>
We don't run NIS of any sort so there are no file servers which could be
used.
> 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.
>
Yup.
> 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.]
>
Yes, this is what I want to do. It works except that by setting the 'to'
option to the nobody address (to get rid of the message) causes the nobody
address to be logged in the 'log' file. I want the original sender to appear
in the log file. I cannot think of any other way of removing the message
completely except by using the nobody address. I'll have to think about this
- either we keep the nobody address in the log file or we have to devise
some other mechanism.
John.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Horne, University of Plymouth, UK Tel: +44 (0)1752 233914
E-mail: jhorne@???
PGP key available from public key servers
