Am 03.02.2012 16:37, schrieb TFML: > Yes, its for an application we are building.
the i would say the application should send replies because it proceeds the data and not the MTA who does nothing know about what happens > I'm asking for help/suggestions, not condescending attitude and assumptions. yes, but it is wise to descrbe the problem and not the solution you think is good because people usually making mistakes in the assumptions what solution they need and help to realize them may end finally in damage or at least not the expected result at all BTW: if you get a reply beloe your text PLEASE put your answer also below because no matter if i answer top or bottem now: the thread is destroyed > On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> >> >> Am 03.02.2012 16:12, schrieb TFML: >>> Could someone point me the right direction... >>> >>> I'm attempting to send an autoreply on a catchall. We receive message from >>> sender (From: sen...@domain.tld) to our catchall (Actual mainbox) account >>> (To: j...@domain.tld), then the autoreply will send a message back to send >>> and the headers look as follows: >>> >>> From: catch...@domain.tld >>> To: sen...@domain.tld >>> >>> What I would like to change is the "From" address to be "j...@domain.tld" >>> instead of "catch...@domain.tld" if possible. If not possible, can I pass >>> "orig_to" variables to a message from a perl auto reply? The message body >>> would have: >>> >>> Originally sent to j...@domain.tld >>> >>> Any information would be greatly appreciated. >> >> do you really think any autoreply on catch-all is a good idea? >> >> this meany finally that every mass spam attack not detected >> and trying all sotrts of @yourdomain will produce a autreply >> and in the worst case to a forged sender which results in quickly >> get blacklisted all over the world!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
