autorespond solutions
wat...@fongaboo.com
wondering what everyone's recommendations for autoresponder solutions are
with postfix. before i switched to postfix, i was using the autorespond
that is in FreeBSD ports along with qmail. Don't think that can be made to
work with postfix tho.
-FONG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
shot through the heart ooh baby do you know what that's worth
and you're to blame ooh heaven is a place on earth
darling you give love they say in heaven love comes first
a bad name we'll make heaven a place on earth
ORBITAL "Halcyon Live"
LeonardoRodriguesMagalhães
Almost everyone's recomendation about autoresponders would be: DONT.
But if your stupid boss demands it, i would recommend yaa
(http://frost.ath.cx/software/yaa/). It's not that trivial to configure,
but works just fine after some hours of fighting with the confs :)
wat...@fongaboo.com escreveu:
>
> wondering what everyone's recommendations for autoresponder solutions
> are with postfix. before i switched to postfix, i was using the
> autorespond that is in FreeBSD ports along with qmail. Don't think
> that can be made to work with postfix tho.
>
--
Atenciosamente / Sincerily,
Leonardo Rodrigues
Solutti Tecnologia
http://www.solutti.com.br
Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email
gert...@solutti.com.br
My SPAMTRAP, do not email it
Evan Platt
>wondering what everyone's recommendations for autoresponder
>solutions are with postfix. before i switched to postfix, i was
>using the autorespond that is in FreeBSD ports along with qmail.
>Don't think that can be made to work with postfix tho.
Honestly, this is discussed about once a week.
IMHO, as Barbara Bush said, Just Say NO!
I can't tell you how many lists I'm on where I end up getting a "I'm
out of the office" reply. It's annoying.
Charles Marcus
Totally unrealistic answer.
The fact is, many big corp execs will *demand* this kind of
functionality. Besides, if it is implemented properly, most list
responses can be supressed, as well as endless loops and the like.
--
Best regards,
Charles
Evan Platt
>The fact is, many big corp execs will *demand* this kind of
>functionality. Besides, if it is implemented properly, most list
>responses can be supressed, as well as endless loops and the like.
A ISP I worked at a few years ago had a autoresponder for our
engineering department to open up trouble tickets. An occasional spam
got through, no biggie. It based it on the subject, so if you sent
two e-mails, you'd get two tickets.That was the intent. Obviously, if
you replied, it would add to the ticket.
One customer of ours sent a e-mail to engineering, then turned on
some auto responder, then left the office. The autoresponder didn't
keep the subject the same, and munged everything else, so basically
he sent his e-mail, our ticketing system sent a reply. His auto
responder replied, we opened another ticket and auto responded, he
autoresponded, we autoresponded, etc.
I think since it happened on an evening, over 700 tickets were opened
before we temporarily shut down the auto responder, and modified our
ticketing system to I think blackhole him. :-D
Charles Marcus
>> functionality. Besides, if it is implemented properly, most list
>> responses can be supressed, as well as endless loops and the like.
> A ISP I worked at a few years ago had a autoresponder for our
> engineering department to open up trouble tickets. An occasional spam
> got through, no biggie. It based it on the subject, so if you sent two
> e-mails, you'd get two tickets.That was the intent. Obviously, if you
> replied, it would add to the ticket.
>
> One customer of ours sent a e-mail to engineering, then turned on some
> auto responder, then left the office. The autoresponder didn't keep the
> subject the same, and munged everything else, so basically he sent his
> e-mail, our ticketing system sent a reply. His auto responder replied,
> we opened another ticket and auto responded, he autoresponded, we
> autoresponded, etc.
Heh - yeah, I'm not saying that there aren't broken implementations,
thats for sure...
An intelligent auto-responder also won't respond to messages from the
same sender every time - some are configurable - ie, you could set it to
not reply to the same sender more than once every 4 hours...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Alexandre Balistrieri
> wondering what everyone's recommendations for autoresponder solutions are
> with postfix. before i switched to postfix, i was using the autorespond
> that is in FreeBSD ports along with qmail. Don't think that can be made to
> work with postfix tho.
>
> -FONG
My example.
Main.cf
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/procmail -a "$EXTENSION"
/home/watson/.procmailrc
:0 hc
* !^FROM_DAEMON
* !^X-Loop: wat...@fongaboo.com
| (formail -r -I"Precedence: Junk" \
-A"X-Loop: wat...@fongaboo.com" ; \
echo "Auto-respond text") | $SENDMAIL -t
--
[]s
Bali
Victor Duchovni
> An intelligent auto-responder also won't respond to messages from the
> same sender every time - some are configurable - ie, you could set it to
> not reply to the same sender more than once every 4 hours...
DON'T auto-respond:
- To the header "From:" or "Reply-To:" addresses, use the envelope
sender address (which may be present in the Return-Path header).
- When the envelope sender is <>
- When the envelope sender starts with "owner-"
- When envelope sender localpart ends with "-request"
- When the headers include "Precedence: bulk" or "Precedence: junk"
- When the headers include "Auto-Submitted: not-no", where "not-no"
is any value other than "no".
- When the headers include "List-Something:" headers (List-Help,
List-Unsubscribe, ...).
- When the subject includes text from your auto-response subject.
- When the subject matches popular "Out of office" subject patterns.
Read http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3834.txt
When auto-responding:
- Add "Precedence: junk"
- Add "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied"
- Set the envelope sender to <>
- Append a portion of the original subject (truncated if the total
length is too large) to your subject.
- Set the "From: " header to an address that does not elicit
auto-responses is perhaps rejected.
- Set "Reply-To:" to an address that is read by a human.
- Whenever possible don't autorespond to the same sender for some
time.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majo...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
wat...@fongaboo.com
Yeah the nice thing about /usr/ports/mail/autorespond for qmail is that it
had a limitation as to how many autoresponses could be invoked per hour or
something like that.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Charles Marcus wrote:
> An intelligent auto-responder also won't respond to messages from the same
> sender every time - some are configurable - ie, you could set it to not reply
> to the same sender more than once every 4 hours...
I know vacation email responders are not popular but I am actually using
autorespond for a different purpose as part of a larger M.O.
In order to stave off webcrawlers, I post my email address on my webpage
with a 3-digit number in the prefix. But once the spammers do get hold of
that particular permutation, I change it to a new number and then block
off the old one. But I also route it to an autoresponder with a message
telling people a temp address to resend to, for bonafide contacts who
might be straggling with the old address. It seems to work pretty well for
me.
-FONG
mouss
>
> wondering what everyone's recommendations for autoresponder solutions
> are with postfix. before i switched to postfix, i was using the
> autorespond that is in FreeBSD ports along with qmail. Don't think
> that can be made to work with postfix tho.
If having a "local" setup, use the old BSD 'vacation' program. It's been
around for a long time.
If you want to implement yours, check the RFC by Keith Moore.
mouss
so you send an autoreply to
- mailing lists such as this one (did you take the time to check this
the Precedence header of this list?)
- newsletters
- autoreplies
- spam (thus causing bacscatter)
...
bad, too bad.
Curtis Doty
>
> If you want to implement yours, check the RFC by Keith Moore.
Great tip, thanks. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3834
../C
Alexandre Balistrieri
:-(
I have ONLY one account doing that for temporary conditions.
"Postfix - Richard Blum - Part II Instaling and Configuring Postfix - Page 377
and 378".
--
[]s
Bali
Charles Marcus
- it is much appreciated!
--
Best regards,
Charles