Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Patrick Nagel wrote:
Shouldn't that be more like:
reject "this guy is gone";
keep;
Yes, that was my first proposal, but that was also rejected harshly by
the other project managers. They wanted to have some "transit time" in
which the replacement guy would still access the leaving guy's mailbox.
They felt that just deactivating the mailbox and rejecting mails would
be "rude".
Ah, but that's why I had the "keep" there! The reject message of course could
have been nicer and said how the guy is gone but this address will be read for a bit
longer but anyway stop sending mail here.
==
RFC 5429; page 8
"reject" MUST be incompatible with the "vacation" [VACATION] action.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED that implementations permit the use of "reject"
with actions that cause mail delivery, such as "keep", "fileinto",
and "redirect".
Making "reject" compatible with actions that cause mail delivery
violates the RFC 5321 [SMTP] principle that a message is either
delivered or bounced back to the sender. So bouncing a message back
(rejecting) and delivering it will make the sender believe that the
message was not delivered.
==
Timo, your script would cause a runtime error, because reject is not
allowed with an explicit keep currently.
Regards,
Stephan.
