Phil Chambers Wrote:
> I am setting up new hardware to take over from my old service and am
> taking the
> oportunity to clean up the exim configuration and remove lots of legacy
> issues.
>
> My current service supports vacation using the Unix vacation program
> which derives
> from University of California software. This does "the right thing" in
> only
> responding to messages explicitly addressed to the user. It also does
> not respond
> to messages from *-request, mailer-daemon etc.
>
> I remembered having seen messages on this list from people using Exim's
> autoreply
> for this, so decided to consider that instead.
>
> However, the only examples I can find from searching the list archive
> seem to take
> no steps to restrict the circumstances under which they respond.
> Indeed, the exim
> spec (4.50: Section 46.8) makes no reference to this issue,
> particularly the risk of
> creating a vacation loop between two people who have it set up.
>
Yes Phil that is a very basic example. There are as many ways to get
this done as there are people getting them done. Therefor I offer my
way of getting this done. It does not address the "CC" or "BCC" aspect
but because it users the autoreply driver as it should never generate a
loop.
Check out the HOW-TO at
http://www.exim-users.org/forums/showthread.php?p=170340
For two different takes on the vacation router. The first is fine for
instances that the users all have shell access and the second on is for
use with Squirrelmail and a modified courier_vacation plugin, the
details of that are included as well.
AS I said, there are many ways to get the results you need but, this is
one that I have been deploying on my servers.
Hope this helps
Kevin
--
kmb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kmb's Profile:
http://www.exim-users.org/forums/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=1
View this thread:
http://www.exim-users.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=48242
