Possible Sieve vacation bug (Was: [exim] Sieve vacation)

Pàgina inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Bob Johannessen
Data:  
A: exim-users
Assumptes vells: Re: [exim] Sieve vacation
Assumpte: Possible Sieve vacation bug (Was: [exim] Sieve vacation)
Michael Haardt wrote:
> The code is not well tested (read: it works for me and some other people
> I know). Apart from that, it is finished, that's why it is enabled now.
> I should have sent Philip a patch to remove the comment. Philip, are
> you reading this?


You may not want to do that just yet. I just did some experiments,
and the Sieve script:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
require "vacation";

vacation
         :days 1
         :subject "Out of office until 2007"
         :mime "
From: B. Johannessen <xxx@???>


I'm out -- send mail to 2";

fileinto "INBOX";
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Resulted in the following reply:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: <>
Envelope-to: xxx@???
Delivery-date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:04:32 +0000
Received: from vmail by maildialog.com with local (Exim 4.43)
         id 1D1QjA-0007b4-0u
         for xxx@???; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:04:32 +0000
To: xxx@???
Subject: Out of office until 2007
In-Reply-To: <4213605F.2040403@???>
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
Message-Id: <E1D1QjA-0007b4-0u@???>
From: Maildialog virtual mail user <vmail@???>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:04:32 +0000


From: B. Johannessen <xxx@???>on AS disposxxx@???

I'm out -- send mail to 2r      AS filter, 
         l.mailbox       AS mailbox, 
  u.uid           AS uid,                                         u.gid 
           AS gid,         Sieve error: missing previous require 
"fileinto"; in line 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, the script is clearly in error for not "require"-ing "fileinto",
but I don't think that's any excuse to include parts of one of my
(SQL) queries in the reply (additionally I'm not sure I'm using the
:mime parameter correctly, but again I don't think that's an excuse
for the observed behavior either).

> Vacation without a vacation_directory looks mostly useless to me, but
> I am interested to hear different opinions. I could probably add some
> code specifically for testing that does not require a vacation directory
> and does not create or access files, so you could feed it filter files
> that use the vacation extension.


My thinking was that a script /test/ should never write anything to that
directory, so it wouldn't hurt just to hard-code it when running the
test. I could be wrong though...

And one last question: In a virtual environment would it be safe to use
one sieve_vacation_directory for all users?


    Bob