parse_address() and restricting SIEVE vacation replies

[Derrick J Brashear]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, James Ralston wrote:

> Because of SpamCop's attitude towards autoresponders*, I wish to patch
> the implementation of the SIEVE vacation extension so that it will
> never respond to remote addresses.

Wow, that's pretty useless:
"Solution: Do not use these systems. Inform your normal corespondents of 
your absence before you depart. Or let a co-worker answer your email in 
your absence. Publish FAQ information on a web-site. If you wish to 
dispense information via email, it's easy to reject a message while 
referring the sender to a FAQ web-page. Using sendmail, this is done in 
the access.db table like so:

to:oldaddress at example.com 550 Old address no longer valid, please see: 
http://www.example.com/NewAddressInfo.html"

So according to them I should either let someone else read my mail, or 
reject my mail... by giving users the ability to load addresses into 
sendmail config files!

> From looking at sieve/bc_eval.c, this actually seems pretty
> straightforward to do; I can just add another test case to
> shouldRespond().
>
> There's a comment fairly early in shouldRespond:
>
>    /* Note: the domain-part of all addresses are canonicalized */
>
> Does this mean that parse_address() is always going to return an
> addr-spec, as per RFC2822 section 3.4.1?

As opposed to what?

---
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html