From: mouss (mlist.onlyfree.fr)
Date: Wed Oct 17 2007 - 15:53:26 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Wed, October 17, 2007 18:35, Juan Miscaro wrote:
>
>> I didn't think of the issues raised in the RFC. Any suggestions on how
>> I can avoid them without using maildrop? I can't use the mentioned
>> vacation tool because my users are virtual (I believe I need a $HOME).
>
> svn co https://postfixadmin.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/postfixadmin postfixadmin
>

I am not sure it is safe. After a quick look at the code:
- it seems it responds to the From: header address instead of the
envelope sender.
- I see no check for List-* headers
- I see no check for Auto-Submitted header
- I don't see it adding an Auto-Submitted header.
- will it send two responses if the recipient is found twice in the To
header (there is no "last;" after send_vacation(...) in the last for loop).
- The parsing of the To header is just a split() using "," as the
separator. I'm not sure this heuristic is safe enough.
- it looks like it encodes the message in base64. it is considered a
spam sign when such encoding is unnecessary (for example, plain text and
html mail does not need to be encoded in base64).
- It may respond to spam
...

again, this is a quick code walkthrough. I may be wrong.

> take the vacation from it, just imho silly to say users are gone here with
> just a vacation, when users do not read mail here anymore, thats why i say
> relocated_maps was more what you wanted, but its your problem, now you have
> the source
>
> postfixadmin IS working with virtual vacation here, one can test on
> passportjunc.org with is my msn aswell
>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]