Quantcast

Re: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Randy Ramsdell
Victor Duchovni wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>
>  
>> Evidence? I made an assumption which as it turns out, was incorrect. I
>> did a test and found out that the script actually runs as user nobody.
>> Maybe stating that postfix defaults to run scripts as user nobody would
>> have been an important point to make. So now it boils down to finding a
>> way to run the sendmail command as user nobody. This was the actual
>> problem. Any suggestions would be welcomed. Maybe sudo.
>>    
> Why don't you start over and describe the real-world problem you are
> trying solve (not the problems you are believe you are having implementing
> the solution). Something along the lines of:
>
>     - I am trying to write an auto-responder script. I have read
>       RFC 3834 and understand the difference between envelope and
>       header addresses, the role of the "Return-Path" header ...
>
>  
The responder is fixed as there was a small glitch dealing with the user
postfix runs as.

>     - The autoresponder carefully inserts "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied"
>       as well as "Precedence: junk" into the response message, and uses
>       an empty envelope sender (does not elicit remote bounces).
>
>  
It does add "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied", but I am not using
"Precedence: junk."
I am sort of confused about the proper way to deal with the from field.
You say it should be empy. Or is it better to add a noreply type address.

>     - In my script I collect the message content from standard-input
>       (e.g. as in <http://www.postfix.org/FILTER_README.html#simple_filter>)
>       parse the headers ... and send the respose as follows:
>
>       /usr/sbin/sendmail -f "<>" -it < $response_file
>
>     - The following things are not working:
>
>     - Logs of failed delivery or failed injection
> - Verbose logging from debugging code in script
>  

I may use this method later.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Victor Duchovni
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:29:35AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:

> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> >
> >  
> >>Evidence? I made an assumption which as it turns out, was incorrect. I
> >>did a test and found out that the script actually runs as user nobody.
> >>Maybe stating that postfix defaults to run scripts as user nobody would
> >>have been an important point to make. So now it boils down to finding a
> >>way to run the sendmail command as user nobody. This was the actual
> >>problem. Any suggestions would be welcomed. Maybe sudo.
> >>    
> >Why don't you start over and describe the real-world problem you are
> >trying solve (not the problems you are believe you are having implementing
> >the solution). Something along the lines of:
> >
> >    - I am trying to write an auto-responder script. I have read
> >      RFC 3834 and understand the difference between envelope and
> >      header addresses, the role of the "Return-Path" header ...
> >
> >  
> The responder is fixed as there was a small glitch dealing with the user
> postfix runs as.
>
> >    - The autoresponder carefully inserts "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied"
> >      as well as "Precedence: junk" into the response message, and uses
> >      an empty envelope sender (does not elicit remote bounces).
> >
> >  
> It does add "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied", but I am not using
> "Precedence: junk."
> I am sort of confused about the proper way to deal with the from field.
> You say it should be empy. Or is it better to add a noreply type address.

Don't confuse the envelope sender with the "From: " address. Just be aware
the some auto-responders will respond to "From:" not the envelope sender,
and you need to be careful about loops.

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[hidden email]?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Randy Ramsdell
Victor Duchovni wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:29:35AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>
>  
>> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>>    
>>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> Evidence? I made an assumption which as it turns out, was incorrect. I
>>>> did a test and found out that the script actually runs as user nobody.
>>>> Maybe stating that postfix defaults to run scripts as user nobody would
>>>> have been an important point to make. So now it boils down to finding a
>>>> way to run the sendmail command as user nobody. This was the actual
>>>> problem. Any suggestions would be welcomed. Maybe sudo.
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>> Why don't you start over and describe the real-world problem you are
>>> trying solve (not the problems you are believe you are having implementing
>>> the solution). Something along the lines of:
>>>
>>>    - I am trying to write an auto-responder script. I have read
>>>      RFC 3834 and understand the difference between envelope and
>>>      header addresses, the role of the "Return-Path" header ...
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>> The responder is fixed as there was a small glitch dealing with the user
>> postfix runs as.
>>
>>    
>>>    - The autoresponder carefully inserts "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied"
>>>      as well as "Precedence: junk" into the response message, and uses
>>>      an empty envelope sender (does not elicit remote bounces).
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>> It does add "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied", but I am not using
>> "Precedence: junk."
>> I am sort of confused about the proper way to deal with the from field.
>> You say it should be empy. Or is it better to add a noreply type address.
>>    
>
> Don't confuse the envelope sender with the "From: " address. Just be aware
> the some auto-responders will respond to "From:" not the envelope sender,
> and you need to be careful about loops.
>
>  
Yes. I have set the "from" and "reply-to"  to a no-reply  email which
simply sends the any response e-mail to "/dev/null" although I am not
sure whether this is the proper way. I was very careful about the
autoresponder  loop issue.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

mouss-2
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>> [snip]
> Yes. I have set the "from" and "reply-to"  to a no-reply  email which
> simply sends the any response e-mail to "/dev/null"

This is bad. the From (or reply-to) must be an address that people can
reach to complain about your mail if they don't like it.

> although I am not sure whether this is the proper way. I was very
> careful about the autoresponder  loop issue.

but did you read RFC 3834 and understand it?

Please do not write yet another borked auto-responder. either take the
time to write a good one or do something else. Note that the old BSD
vacation program has a correct behaviour. only try to reinvent it if
your wheel doesn't turn square.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Randy Ramsdell
mouss wrote:

> Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>> [snip]
>> Yes. I have set the "from" and "reply-to"  to a no-reply  email which
>> simply sends the any response e-mail to "/dev/null"
>
> This is bad. the From (or reply-to) must be an address that people can
> reach to complain about your mail if they don't like it.
>
>> although I am not sure whether this is the proper way. I was very
>> careful about the autoresponder  loop issue.
>
> but did you read RFC 3834 and understand it?
>
> Please do not write yet another borked auto-responder. either take the
> time to write a good one or do something else. Note that the old BSD
> vacation program has a correct behaviour. only try to reinvent it if
> your wheel doesn't turn square.
>
You are a rude person. I am writing this and learning as I go and am not
finished, HENCE this discussion. So I am taking the time to do it
correctly and therefore will not do something else. Thanks for your
advice prick.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Randy Ramsdell
Randy Ramsdell wrote:

> mouss wrote:
>> Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>> Yes. I have set the "from" and "reply-to"  to a no-reply  email
>>> which simply sends the any response e-mail to "/dev/null"
>>
>> This is bad. the From (or reply-to) must be an address that people
>> can reach to complain about your mail if they don't like it.
>>
>>> although I am not sure whether this is the proper way. I was very
>>> careful about the autoresponder  loop issue.
>>
>> but did you read RFC 3834 and understand it?
>>
>> Please do not write yet another borked auto-responder. either take
>> the time to write a good one or do something else. Note that the old
>> BSD vacation program has a correct behaviour. only try to reinvent it
>> if your wheel doesn't turn square.
>>
> You are a rude person. I am writing this and learning as I go and am
> not finished, HENCE this discussion. So I am taking the time to do it
> correctly and therefore will not do something else. Thanks for your
> advice prick.
>
>

RFC 3834:

For automatic responses, the role of the From field in determining
   the destination of replies to the response from humans is less
   significant, because in most cases it is not useful or appropriate
   for a human (or anyone) to reply to an automatic response.  One
   exception is when there is some problem with the response; it should
   be possible to provide feedback to the person operating the
   responder.


Notice the "less significant" part?

The use of the word "MUST" is not used, rather "SHOULD" is used for
specific circumstances.

RF 2119:

The word "SHOULD" described here.

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

So given this, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether I should or
should not use a human reachable e-mail address in "from"field. You may
try to dictate what people  can or  can not do and insult them, but
doing so comes across as arrogant and rude and especially so when you
are wrong.





 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

mouss-2
In reply to this post by Randy Ramsdell
Randy Ramsdell wrote:

> mouss wrote:
>> Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>> Yes. I have set the "from" and "reply-to"  to a no-reply  email
>>> which simply sends the any response e-mail to "/dev/null"
>>
>> This is bad. the From (or reply-to) must be an address that people
>> can reach to complain about your mail if they don't like it.
>>
>>> although I am not sure whether this is the proper way. I was very
>>> careful about the autoresponder  loop issue.
>>
>> but did you read RFC 3834 and understand it?
>>
>> Please do not write yet another borked auto-responder. either take
>> the time to write a good one or do something else. Note that the old
>> BSD vacation program has a correct behaviour. only try to reinvent it
>> if your wheel doesn't turn square.
>>
> You are a rude person.


I don't know if I am rude. I may even be worst. do you want me to beg
you? you apparently ignored Viktor post (read it again, he already
recommended reading and understand the RFC). so I tought a provocative
warning may get better results.

anyway, no offense meant.


> I am writing this and learning as I go and am not finished, HENCE this
> discussion. So I am taking the time to do it correctly and therefore
> will not do something else. Thanks for your advice prick.
>
>
>

then I'm sorry, but we've seen so many people in hurry to code a quick
and dirty responder, and we keep getting undesirable responses. please
do read the cited RFC. here are some "principles"

- never respond to mail sent by robots. in particular, do not
auto-respond to messages sent by mailing lists, newsletters, ...
In particular, do not auto-respond if
 * envelope-sender, Return-Path, From, or Sender headers matche one of
the common mailing list sender patterns ("...-request@...", ...)
 * envelope-sender, Return-Path, From, or Sender headers match
"mailer-daemon" and other "special" senders.
 * presence of List-* header
 * presence of "Mailing-List" header
 * Auto-Submitted header with any value except "No".
 * Precedence: (bulk|junk)
 
- never respond to mail that was not sent to the mailbox you respond
for. you need to check that the mailbox owner address is present in To
and Cc headers.

- do not respond to mail that "you think reasonable people think is
spam". if in doubt, do not auto-respond!

- do not respond to malformed mail.

- always use the envelope. never respond th From/Reply-To address. only
respond to envelope senders (generally found in return-Path). if you
can't get the envelope, do not auto-respond. From and Reply-To are meant
for people, not for auto-responders.

- if you respond, include the original headers (this may be tricky as
you must send valid mail) and make it easy for the recipient to see that
this is an auto-response (Subject and text...)

- allow the recipient to reach someone. it is annoying to get mail from
[hidden email]. so set the From header to an address that people
can reach if they want to complain, ...  oh, yes, you may get bounces to
this address from borked systems. but you can ignore them or whatever.
this does in no way justify the use of "devnull" addresses. you don't
want the other side to devnull all your network, do you? "Reachability"
is the minimum requirement when you send mail. Be cooperative, not
selfish. Be part of the solution, not of the problem.

-



 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

mouss-2
In reply to this post by Randy Ramsdell
Randy Ramsdell wrote:

> Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>> mouss wrote:
>>> Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>> Yes. I have set the "from" and "reply-to"  to a no-reply  email
>>>> which simply sends the any response e-mail to "/dev/null"
>>>
>>> This is bad. the From (or reply-to) must be an address that people
>>> can reach to complain about your mail if they don't like it.
>>>
>>>> although I am not sure whether this is the proper way. I was very
>>>> careful about the autoresponder  loop issue.
>>>
>>> but did you read RFC 3834 and understand it?
>>>
>>> Please do not write yet another borked auto-responder. either take
>>> the time to write a good one or do something else. Note that the old
>>> BSD vacation program has a correct behaviour. only try to reinvent
>>> it if your wheel doesn't turn square.
>>>
>> You are a rude person. I am writing this and learning as I go and am
>> not finished, HENCE this discussion. So I am taking the time to do it
>> correctly and therefore will not do something else. Thanks for your
>> advice prick.
>>
>>
>
> RFC 3834:
>
> For automatic responses, the role of the From field in determining
>   the destination of replies to the response from humans is less
>   significant, because in most cases it is not useful or appropriate
>   for a human (or anyone) to reply to an automatic response.  One
>   exception is when there is some problem with the response; it should
>   be possible to provide feedback to the person operating the
>   responder.
>
>
> Notice the "less significant" part?
>
> The use of the word "MUST" is not used, rather "SHOULD" is used for
> specific circumstances.
>
> RF 2119:
>
> The word "SHOULD" described here.
>
> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>
> So given this, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether I should
> or should not use a human reachable e-mail address in "from"field. You
> may try to dictate what people  can or  can not do and insult them,
> but doing so comes across as arrogant and rude and especially so when
> you are wrong.
>
>


Please accept my appologies. I promiss not to write anything to you.
would be kind and remove me from the list of your recipients?

Thanks a lot.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Victor Duchovni
In reply to this post by mouss-2
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:37:19PM +0200, mouss wrote:

> * Precedence: (bulk|junk)

Also "Precedence: list".

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[hidden email]?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Randy Ramsdell
In reply to this post by mouss-2
mouss wrote:

> Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>> mouss wrote:
>>> Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>> Yes. I have set the "from" and "reply-to"  to a no-reply  email
>>>> which simply sends the any response e-mail to "/dev/null"
>>>
>>> This is bad. the From (or reply-to) must be an address that people
>>> can reach to complain about your mail if they don't like it.
>>>
>>>> although I am not sure whether this is the proper way. I was very
>>>> careful about the autoresponder  loop issue.
>>>
>>> but did you read RFC 3834 and understand it?
>>>
>>> Please do not write yet another borked auto-responder. either take
>>> the time to write a good one or do something else. Note that the old
>>> BSD vacation program has a correct behaviour. only try to reinvent
>>> it if your wheel doesn't turn square.
>>>
>> You are a rude person.
>
>
> I don't know if I am rude. I may even be worst. do you want me to beg
> you? you apparently ignored Viktor post (read it again, he already
> recommended reading and understand the RFC). so I tought a provocative
> warning may get better results.
>
> anyway, no offense meant.
>
Beg me for what? Beg that I forgive you and Victor for hijacking the
thread with assumptions  about a  responder when you have absolutely no
idea what is is for and why we need it? Sure .
Hopefully you realize your whole point is made on assumptions and is off
topic for what the original thread. Also, the only reason this even came
up was because Victor saw a file name called autoresponder which I
guess, was his and your queue to hijack this thread with "we know best
and are assuming you a screwing up" attitude.

>
>> I am writing this and learning as I go and am not finished, HENCE
>> this discussion. So I am taking the time to do it correctly and
>> therefore will not do something else. Thanks for your advice prick.
>>
>>
>>
>
> then I'm sorry, but we've seen so many people in hurry to code a quick
> and dirty responder, and we keep getting undesirable responses. please
> do read the cited RFC. here are some "principles"
>
I understand this, however, this is not relevant because you know
absolutely nothing regarding this responder. You haven't seen the code,
you simply assumed it was not written correctly. Arrogance at its finest.

> - never respond to mail sent by robots. in particular, do not
> auto-respond to messages sent by mailing lists, newsletters, ...
> In particular, do not auto-respond if
> * envelope-sender, Return-Path, From, or Sender headers matche one of
> the common mailing list sender patterns ("...-request@...", ...)
> * envelope-sender, Return-Path, From, or Sender headers match
> "mailer-daemon" and other "special" senders.
> * presence of List-* header
> * presence of "Mailing-List" header
> * Auto-Submitted header with any value except "No".

> * Precedence: (bulk|junk)
The precedence field is not required for responders.

Once again, arrogance. You are giving a lecture without knowing a single
thing regarding this script. Do you know who this responder responds to?
Is it internal? Is is controlled via rules that only allow a few hosts
to send to it? What exactly do you know about this responder?

> - never respond to mail that was not sent to the mailbox you respond
> for. you need to check that the mailbox owner address is present in To
> and Cc headers.
>
> - do not respond to mail that "you think reasonable people think is
> spam". if in doubt, do not auto-respond!
>
Nice. Everyone is stupid except to the few correct?
> - do not respond to malformed mail.
>
> - always use the envelope. never respond th From/Reply-To address.
> only respond to envelope senders (generally found in return-Path). if
> you can't get the envelope, do not auto-respond. From and Reply-To are
> meant for people, not for auto-responders.
Unless you are not using the envelope to assertain who you need to
respond to. This is NOT a "out of office" type of auto responder.


- if you respond, include the original headers (this may be tricky as
you must send valid mail) and make it easy for the recipient to see that
this is an auto-response (Subject and text...)

>
> - allow the recipient to reach someone. it is annoying to get mail
> from [hidden email]. so set the From header to an address that
> people can reach if they want to complain, ...  oh, yes, you may get
> bounces to this address from borked systems. but you can ignore them
> or whatever. this does in no way justify the use of "devnull"
> addresses. you don't want the other side to devnull all your network,
> do you? "Reachability" is the minimum requirement when you send mail.
> Be cooperative, not selfish. Be part of the solution, not of the problem.
>
> -
>
Reply-to/From: In RFC3834 reads that one "SHOULD"and in rfc2119 reads
that "SHOULD" means recommended but this does not mean "MUST." RFC3834
goes further to read that there are circumstances that one wouldn't use
reply-to/from which maps to a real user.

Anyway, I do not mind taking this off list if I can learn something or
leave it on list if someone else will.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Charles Marcus
On 4/30/2008 4:35 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> This is NOT a "out of office" type of auto responder.

And if you had made this clear in the beginning, it would have saved
yourself and the rest of us all of this crap-crud.

The fact is, when someone says 'auto-responder', without
*qualification*, it is NOT unreasonable for everyone to make the
assumptions they did.

--

Best regards,

Charles
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Randy Ramsdell
Charles Marcus wrote:

> On 4/30/2008 4:35 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>> This is NOT a "out of office" type of auto responder.
>
> And if you had made this clear in the beginning, it would have saved
> yourself and the rest of us all of this crap-crud.
>
> The fact is, when someone says 'auto-responder', without
> *qualification*, it is NOT unreasonable for everyone to make the
> assumptions they did.
>
Maybe read the post before you respond as that would help a great deal.
Someone saw a filename with the name "autoresponder" in one of my
reponses and then hijacked the thread to write about that instead of the
real subject. So you tell me smart guy, why should one elaborate on
their autoresponder which had nothing to do with the original question?
Mouse and Victor decided to turn this into a thread about
auto-responders in general, which is why I added "OT" to the subject.
The original question was about file permission and running scripts
through the aliases file. Understand? So please think before you write.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Wietse Venema
Randy Ramsdell:

> Charles Marcus wrote:
> > On 4/30/2008 4:35 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> >> This is NOT a "out of office" type of auto responder.
> >
> > And if you had made this clear in the beginning, it would have saved
> > yourself and the rest of us all of this crap-crud.
> >
> > The fact is, when someone says 'auto-responder', without
> > *qualification*, it is NOT unreasonable for everyone to make the
> > assumptions they did.
> >
> Maybe read the post before you respond as that would help a great deal.
> Someone saw a filename with the name "autoresponder" in one of my
> reponses and then hijacked the thread to write about that instead of the
> real subject. So you tell me smart guy, why should one elaborate on
> their autoresponder which had nothing to do with the original question?
> Mouse and Victor decided to turn this into a thread about
> auto-responders in general, which is why I added "OT" to the subject.
> The original question was about file permission and running scripts
> through the aliases file. Understand? So please think before you write.

Let's kill this thread. The OP is obviously a jerk. His first
response to reasonable requests for concrete information is "Was
it really confusing? The aliases file can copy an email to a file
and also pipe to a script. The file perms of the email prevent the
the script from parsing the file. [...]" and provides only a fraction
of the information requested.

If people react to reasonable requests as if someone stepped on
their dick, then just don't help them.

        Wietse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Randy Ramsdell
Wietse Venema wrote:

> Randy Ramsdell:
>  
>> Charles Marcus wrote:
>>    
>>> On 4/30/2008 4:35 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>>>      
>>>> This is NOT a "out of office" type of auto responder.
>>>>        
>>> And if you had made this clear in the beginning, it would have saved
>>> yourself and the rest of us all of this crap-crud.
>>>
>>> The fact is, when someone says 'auto-responder', without
>>> *qualification*, it is NOT unreasonable for everyone to make the
>>> assumptions they did.
>>>
>>>      
>> Maybe read the post before you respond as that would help a great deal.
>> Someone saw a filename with the name "autoresponder" in one of my
>> reponses and then hijacked the thread to write about that instead of the
>> real subject. So you tell me smart guy, why should one elaborate on
>> their autoresponder which had nothing to do with the original question?
>> Mouse and Victor decided to turn this into a thread about
>> auto-responders in general, which is why I added "OT" to the subject.
>> The original question was about file permission and running scripts
>> through the aliases file. Understand? So please think before you write.
>>    
>
> Let's kill this thread. The OP is obviously a jerk. His first
> response to reasonable requests for concrete information is "Was
> it really confusing? The aliases file can copy an email to a file
> and also pipe to a script. The file perms of the email prevent the
> the script from parsing the file. [...]" and provides only a fraction
> of the information requested.
>
> If people react to reasonable requests as if someone stepped on
> their dick, then just don't help them.
>
> Wietse
>  
And the ones that hijacked the thread with personal agenda's regarding
autoresponders aren't being jerks? Was there a single question about how
to write an autoreponder ? And if not, why hijack a thread starting out
by basically saying "We don't know anything about your script, but will
assume you wrote it wrong. Therefore you don't know what you are doing
and shouldn't write it." They were just as rude as you took my
"confusing" statement to be but they were more straight forward with
their insults. Amazing thought processes!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: OT: aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Wietse Venema
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Let's kill this thread. The OP is obviously a jerk. His first
> response to reasonable requests for concrete information is "Was
> it really confusing? The aliases file can copy an email to a file
> and also pipe to a script. The file perms of the email prevent the
> the script from parsing the file. [...]" and provides only a fraction
> of the information requested.
>
> If people react to reasonable requests as if someone stepped on
> their dick, then just don't help them.

Randy Ramsdell:
> And the ones that hijacked the thread with personal agenda's regarding
> autoresponders aren't being jerks? Was there a single question about how

When the OP's first response is that of a jerk who can't be bothered
to answer all the questions in a reasonable request for detail,
then you can expect irritation and speculation. Even I can see that.

This non-Postfix thread has gone on long enough.

        Wietse
Loading...