On 03.10.2011, at 13:13, Wietse Venema wrote: > Simeon Ott: >> >> On 03.10.2011, at 00:35, Wietse Venema wrote: >> >>> Simeon Ott: >>>> and how did you guys configure gnarwl without having these problems? >>>> am i the only one who experienced this with GNARWL? that sounds a >>>> bit strange to me. >>> >>> First, few sites use BATV. >>> >>> Second, BATV works perfectly fine with autoresponders that adhere >>> to mail standards: a) reply to the envelope sender address, and b) >>> send the reply with a null envelope sender address. >>> >>> I suspect that BATV also inter-operates with buggy autoresponders >>> that violate both requirements a) and b): reply to an address in >>> the from header, and send email with a non-null envelope sender. >>> >>> But BATV won't inter-operate with buggy autoresponders that violate >>> only a) or b) but not both. That is a BATV feature, not a bug. >>> >>> Currently, your gnarwl setup falls into none of these categories >>> since it changes a remote address into a local one. >>> >>> You can prevent address destruction by not using the gnarwl -s >>> option (this means you will violate requirement a) above), but >>> that won't be sufficient for BATV inter-operability unless gnarwl >>> also violates the b) requirement. >>> >>> Wietse >> >> Thank you Wietse for your supportive analytical understanding. Even if i d >> -idn't get the two last points (a and b) you pointed me to one possible solut >> -ion :-) Omitting the -s parameter and it's argument forces GNARWL to read th >> -e senders email address from the piped mail - GNARWL doesn't fail in this ca >> -se and uses the correct email address (Envelope From Header) to send its aut >> -oresponse. > > This is NOT THE SOLUTION. Autoresponders that reply to the header > are broken, as outlined above. > > The solution is to fix gnarwl sothat it does not modify the address. > > Wietse > Wietse
Excuse me for misunderstanding this as a solution. I do my best to understand what I am doing - that was just a case which resolved my issue for now. Prior to reconfigure my mailsystem I asked if this behavior looks like a bug in GNARWL because i just wanted to have my back covered when i fill a bug on the gnarwl buglist. I'm a postfix user not a pro administrator and do not know all the standards defined in all the RFCs. But I do my best in reading manuals to get closer. There was no precise answer to this question (is this a bug in gnarwl?) that's why I looked for other possibilities. I'm going to reconfigure GNARWL to use a null envelope sender in the sendmail command as long as this Bug (!) is not fixed in GNARWL. Or what would you suggest?
