Simeon Ott:
> 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 underst
>-and 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 b
>-ug 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 no
>-t know all the standards defined in all the RFCs. But I do my best in readin
>-g manuals to get closer. There was no precise answer to this question (is th
>-is 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 sendm
>-ail command as long as this Bug (!) is not fixed in GNARWL. Or what would yo
>-u suggest?
Sorry, I'm just the guy who wrote Postfix. I can't answer questions
about how to configure gnawrl, because I have never used it.
Wietse
