Am 14.05.2014 16:56, schrieb Charles Marcus: > On 5/14/2014 10:44 AM, Steffen Kaiser <skdove...@smail.inf.fh-brs.de> wrote: >> Yep, those using different <> null senders should be aware, that there >> envelope sender rewritings, such as BATV >> and SRS0, that make the address unique each time by adding hashed timestamps >> or something like that. Those >> rewritings undermine the vacation database. >> I hope that those implementations generate an unique address per day and not >> per message. > > Best would be if there was a way to code sieve such that it could ignore the > BATV/SRS0 junk, as well as plussed > addresses...
wrong way - there are standards for not-to-repsond messages * null sender * Precedence: bulk * Precedence: list * Auto-Submitted: auto-generated these are typically ignored there is really no reason to code around because someone insists on rejecting all warnings and pretending that he knows what he is doing by add a Return-Path to auto-repsonders no, he does *not* know what he is doing and i even go so far to say it's missing competence for mailserver administration the mail cient on the receiver shows the FROM-HEADER and not the Return-Path and even reply works from a mail-client only other responders and mailing-lists are acting with the Return-Path and they all know how to handle a null-sender
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
