Re: [exim] Delay_warning_condition - new default?

Startseite
Nachricht löschen
Nachricht beantworten
Autor: Tony Finch
Datum:  
To: exim users
Betreff: Re: [exim] Delay_warning_condition - new default?
Sorry, this is a bit late for 4.63. I note that
draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-06 says:

4.6. Restricting Replies to Automated Processes and Mailing Lists

Implementations MAY refuse to send a vacation response to a message
which contains any header or content that makes it appear that a
response would not be appropriate.

Implementations MUST have a list of addresses which "vacation" MUST
NOT send mail to. However, the contents of this list are
implementation defined. The purpose of this list is to stop mail
from going to addresses used by system daemons that would not care if
the user is actually reading her mail.

Implementations are encouraged, however, to include well-known
addresses like "MAILER-DAEMON", "LISTSERV", "majordomo", and other
addresses typically used only by automated systems. Additionally,
addresses ending in "-request" or beginning in "owner-", i.e.,
reserved for mailing list software, are also suggested.

Implementors may take guidance from [RFC2142], but should be careful.
Some addresses, like "POSTMASTER", are generally actually managed by
people, and people do care if the user is going to be unavailable.

Implementations SHOULD NOT respond to any message that contains a
"List-Id" [RFC2919], "List-Help", "List-Subscribe", "List-
Unsubscribe", "List-Post", "List-Owner" or "List-Archive" [RFC2369]
header field.

Implementations SHOULD NOT respond to any message that has an "Auto-
submitted" header field with a value other than "no". This header
field is described in [RFC3834].

Tony.
--
<fanf@???> <dot@???> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\
\N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}