mutt vacation-list issue - SCO

This is a discussion on mutt vacation-list issue - SCO ; Mon Mar 26 13:02:04 EDT 2007 SCO 5.0.6 mutt ver ?? I have an employee 'dlawson' out on maturnity leave. I added /usr/dlawson/.deliver (atached below) '/usr/person/vacation-list' gets appended with any incoming email so that sender receives a message from 'dlawson' ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: mutt vacation-list issue

  1. mutt vacation-list issue

    Mon Mar 26 13:02:04 EDT 2007

    SCO 5.0.6
    mutt ver ??

    I have an employee 'dlawson' out on maturnity leave.
    I added /usr/dlawson/.deliver (atached below)
    '/usr/person/vacation-list' gets appended with any incoming email
    so that sender receives a message from 'dlawson' that they are
    out for vaca|maturnity|sick|etc. ONLY ONE TIME.

    Problem is that 'vacation-list' is creating incorrect outgoing
    email address, so nobody outside 'cactus.com' receives email
    notification that user 'dlawson' is out. Email address below
    are examples only to protect the senders ID.

    Xmail2!myactv.net!wayscomm@cactus.comX
    Xjeff@cactus.comX <=== This was OK
    XMAILER-DAEMON@cactus.comX
    Xmail2!mirenvelope.com!pach@cactus.comX
    Xmail2!club.co.uk!eister@cactus.comX
    Xroot@cactus.comX <=== This was OK
    Xmail2!ds.localdomain!root@cactus.comX
    Xmail2!wanadoo.fr!johnnyl@cactus.comX
    Xmail2!domain.com!do-not-reply@cactus.comX
    Xmail2!saka.com!Jimmy.Bath@cactus.comX
    Xmail2!ecux.net!eman@cactus.comX
    Xmail2!northrupp.com!debrap@cactus.comX
    ----------------- clipped -------------

    Where would I start looking to track down this problem to fix it?
    Solution is that the sender receives ONE email that dlawson is out on vaca.

    TIA!
    - Jeff H


    ################################################## ########################
    #!/bin/ksh
    # @(#) .vacation
    # This script creates a fresh file '$HOME/.deliver
    # which is simply a copy of THIS file with a return date.
    #
    # 1.5 JPRadley 21Dec02
    #
    # See comments at end of this script.
    # /usr/local/bin/vac
    # /usr/local/lib/deliver.vacation ==> $HOME/.deliver When Auto-Reply ON
    # rm -f $HOME/.deliver When Auto-Reply OFF
    #
    ### Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="deliver.vacation"
    # A user delivery file for when you're away.
    PATH=/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
    LOCALDOM="cactus.com"
    PLACE="Lone Star Software Corp"
    SP=`header -f X-Spam-Flag $HEADER`
    export PATH LOCALDOM PLACE SP

    echo "$1" # First of all, keep the mail!

    case "$SP" in
    YES) exit ;; # replying to what is probably SPAM is a waste of time.
    esac

    # Do nothing more unless the message was directly addressed to you.
    header -n -f To -f Cc -f Apparently-To $HEADER | \
    fgrep -iq $1@$LOCALDOM || exit 0

    # Don't waste any energy on daemons
    case $SENDER in
    uucp@$LOCALDOM|cron@$LOCALDOM|*daemon@$LOCALDOM|lp @$LOCALDOM) exit 0 ;;
    esac

    # The ALREADY file remembers to whom you've already mailed vacation messages.
    ALREADY="vacation-list"

    if fgrep X${SENDER}X $ALREADY >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
    then
    exit 0 # We already notified this person; do nothing more
    fi

    # Remember this person
    echo X${SENDER}X >> $ALREADY

    # Send the vacation message
    SUBJECT=`header -f subject $HEADER`
    mutt -s "I'm away from $PLACE" $SENDER < 1. Your message to me on the subject

    "$SUBJECT"

    has been delivered.

    2. Since I'm away on maturnity leave, I have not read your message.

    3. I will be returning to $PLACE
    ==> Monday May 7, 2007 <==

    4. This is the only such notice you will receive.
    If you need immediate assistance, call 301-829-1622

    Thank You.

    !EOF!

    exit 0
    ###--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ### EOF - .vacation
    ###--------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ---- END ----

  2. Re: mutt vacation-list issue

    Jeff Hyman typed (on Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:30:52PM -0400):
    |
    | SCO 5.0.6
    | mutt ver ??
    |
    | I have an employee 'dlawson' out on maturnity leave.
    | I added /usr/dlawson/.deliver (atached below)
    | '/usr/person/vacation-list' gets appended with any incoming email
    | so that sender receives a message from 'dlawson' that they are
    | out for vaca|maturnity|sick|etc. ONLY ONE TIME.
    |
    | Problem is that 'vacation-list' is creating incorrect outgoing
    | email address, so nobody outside 'cactus.com' receives email
    | notification that user 'dlawson' is out. Email address below
    | are examples only to protect the senders ID.
    |
    | Xmail2!myactv.net!wayscomm@cactus.comX
    | Xjeff@cactus.comX <=== This was OK
    | XMAILER-DAEMON@cactus.comX
    | Xmail2!mirenvelope.com!pach@cactus.comX
    | Xmail2!club.co.uk!eister@cactus.comX
    | Xroot@cactus.comX <=== This was OK
    | Xmail2!ds.localdomain!root@cactus.comX
    | Xmail2!wanadoo.fr!johnnyl@cactus.comX
    | Xmail2!domain.com!do-not-reply@cactus.comX
    | Xmail2!saka.com!Jimmy.Bath@cactus.comX
    | Xmail2!ecux.net!eman@cactus.comX
    | Xmail2!northrupp.com!debrap@cactus.comX
    | ----------------- clipped -------------
    |
    | Where would I start looking to track down this problem to fix it?
    | Solution is that the sender receives ONE email that dlawson is out on vaca.

    Nothing whatsoever to do with mutt. The script I wrote is tripping over uucp
    bang!addresses.

    Try replacing your /usr/local/lib/deliver.vacation with the following,
    after editing the LOCALDOM and the PLACE:


    ##### cut here --- file below stored as /usr/local/lib/deliver.vacation #####
    #!/bin/ksh
    # .vacation
    # 1.6 JPRadley 27mar07
    #
    # A user delivery file for when you're away.
    PATH=/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
    LOCALDOM=jpr.com
    PLACE="JP Radley, Inc"
    SP=`header -f X-Spam-Flag $HEADER`

    echo "$1" # First of all, keep the mail!

    case "$SP" in
    YES) exit ;; # replying to what is probably SPAM is a waste of time.
    esac

    # Do nothing more unless the message was directly addressed to you.
    header -n -f To -f Cc -f Apparently-To $HEADER |
    fgrep -iq $1@$LOCALDOM || exit 0

    # Don't waste any energy on daemons
    case $SENDER in
    uucp@$LOCALDOM|cron@$LOCALDOM|*daemon@$LOCALDOM|MA ILER-D*) exit 0 ;;
    esac

    typeset -l FROM=`header -f From $HEADER`

    # The ALREADY file remembers to whom you've already mailed vacation messages.
    ALREADY=vacation-list

    if fgrep X${FROM}X $ALREADY >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
    then
    exit 0 # We already notified this person; do nothing more
    fi

    # Remember this person
    echo X${FROM}X >>$ALREADY

    # Send the vacation message
    SUBJECT=`header -f subject $HEADER`
    mutt -s "I'm away from $PLACE" $FROM < Your message to me on the subject

    "$SUBJECT"

    has been delivered. I have not yet read your message,
    since I am away from $PLACE.

    I expect to return BEBACK.

    This is the only such notice you will receive.

    Thank you.

    !EOF!

    exit 0
    ######### cut here #######

    --
    JP
    ==> http://www.frappr.com/cusm <==

  3. Re: mutt vacation-list issue

    Jean-Pierre Radley typed (on Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:33:48PM -0400):
    | Jeff Hyman typed (on Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:30:52PM -0400):
    | |
    | | SCO 5.0.6
    | | mutt ver ??
    | |
    | | I have an employee 'dlawson' out on maturnity leave.
    | | I added /usr/dlawson/.deliver (atached below)
    | | '/usr/person/vacation-list' gets appended with any incoming email
    | | so that sender receives a message from 'dlawson' that they are
    | | out for vaca|maturnity|sick|etc. ONLY ONE TIME.
    | |
    | | Problem is that 'vacation-list' is creating incorrect outgoing
    | | email address, so nobody outside 'cactus.com' receives email
    | | notification that user 'dlawson' is out. Email address below
    | | are examples only to protect the senders ID.
    | |
    | | Xmail2!myactv.net!wayscomm@cactus.comX
    | | Xjeff@cactus.comX <=== This was OK
    | | XMAILER-DAEMON@cactus.comX
    | | Xmail2!mirenvelope.com!pach@cactus.comX
    | | Xmail2!club.co.uk!eister@cactus.comX
    | | Xroot@cactus.comX <=== This was OK
    | | Xmail2!ds.localdomain!root@cactus.comX
    | | Xmail2!wanadoo.fr!johnnyl@cactus.comX
    | | Xmail2!domain.com!do-not-reply@cactus.comX
    | | Xmail2!saka.com!Jimmy.Bath@cactus.comX
    | | Xmail2!ecux.net!eman@cactus.comX
    | | Xmail2!northrupp.com!debrap@cactus.comX
    | | ----------------- clipped -------------
    | |
    | | Where would I start looking to track down this problem to fix it?
    | | Solution is that the sender receives ONE email that dlawson is out on vaca.
    |
    | Nothing whatsoever to do with mutt. The script I wrote is tripping over uucp
    | bang!addresses.
    |
    | Try replacing your /usr/local/lib/deliver.vacation with the following,
    | after editing the LOCALDOM and the PLACE:
    |
    |
    | ##### cut here --- file below stored as /usr/local/lib/deliver.vacation #####
    | #!/bin/ksh
    | # .vacation
    | # 1.6 JPRadley 27mar07
    | #
    | # A user delivery file for when you're away.
    | PATH=/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
    | LOCALDOM=jpr.com
    | PLACE="JP Radley, Inc"
    | SP=`header -f X-Spam-Flag $HEADER`
    |
    | echo "$1" # First of all, keep the mail!
    |
    | case "$SP" in
    | YES) exit ;; # replying to what is probably SPAM is a waste of time.
    | esac
    |
    | # Do nothing more unless the message was directly addressed to you.
    | header -n -f To -f Cc -f Apparently-To $HEADER |
    | fgrep -iq $1@$LOCALDOM || exit 0
    |
    | # Don't waste any energy on daemons
    | case $SENDER in
    | uucp@$LOCALDOM|cron@$LOCALDOM|*daemon@$LOCALDOM|MA ILER-D*) exit 0 ;;
    | esac
    |
    | typeset -l FROM=`header -f From $HEADER`
    |
    | # The ALREADY file remembers to whom you've already mailed vacation messages.
    | ALREADY=vacation-list
    |
    | if fgrep X${FROM}X $ALREADY >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
    | then
    | exit 0 # We already notified this person; do nothing more
    | fi
    |
    | # Remember this person
    | echo X${FROM}X >>$ALREADY
    |
    | # Send the vacation message
    | SUBJECT=`header -f subject $HEADER`
    | mutt -s "I'm away from $PLACE" $FROM < | Your message to me on the subject
    |
    | "$SUBJECT"
    |
    | has been delivered. I have not yet read your message,
    | since I am away from $PLACE.
    |
    | I expect to return BEBACK.
    |
    | This is the only such notice you will receive.
    |
    | Thank you.
    |
    | !EOF!
    |
    | exit 0
    | ######### cut here #######
    |
    | --
    | JP
    | ==> http://www.frappr.com/cusm <==

    Seems to work much better.
    One noticable error is that a message sent FROM (ie) jeff@cactus.com
    will reply to the SENDER as follows:
    jeffrey@cactus.com
    hyman@cactus.com
    jeff@cactus.com

    # grep jeff /etc/passwd
    jeff:zzzzzzzz:Jeffrey Hyman:/usr/jeff:/xxx/xxx

    It has also been tested outside domain 'cactus.com' with same results.
    I will BOUNCE you a copy of this email.

    - Jeff H

  4. Re: mutt vacation-list issue

    Jeff Hyman typed (on Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:34:00PM -0400):
    | Jean-Pierre Radley typed (on Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:33:48PM -0400):
    | | Jeff Hyman typed (on Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:30:52PM -0400):
    | | |
    | | | SCO 5.0.6
    | | | mutt ver ??
    | | |
    | | | I have an employee 'dlawson' out on maturnity leave.
    | | | I added /usr/dlawson/.deliver (atached below)
    | | | '/usr/person/vacation-list' gets appended with any incoming email
    | | | so that sender receives a message from 'dlawson' that they are
    | | | out for vaca|maturnity|sick|etc. ONLY ONE TIME.
    | | |
    | | | Problem is that 'vacation-list' is creating incorrect outgoing
    | | | email address, so nobody outside 'cactus.com' receives email
    | | | notification that user 'dlawson' is out. Email address below
    | | | are examples only to protect the senders ID.
    | | |
    | | | Xmail2!myactv.net!wayscomm@cactus.comX
    | | | Xjeff@cactus.comX <=== This was OK
    | | | XMAILER-DAEMON@cactus.comX
    | | | Xmail2!mirenvelope.com!pach@cactus.comX
    | | | Xmail2!club.co.uk!eister@cactus.comX
    | | | Xroot@cactus.comX <=== This was OK
    | | | Xmail2!ds.localdomain!root@cactus.comX
    | | | Xmail2!wanadoo.fr!johnnyl@cactus.comX
    | | | Xmail2!domain.com!do-not-reply@cactus.comX
    | | | Xmail2!saka.com!Jimmy.Bath@cactus.comX
    | | | Xmail2!ecux.net!eman@cactus.comX
    | | | Xmail2!northrupp.com!debrap@cactus.comX
    | | | ----------------- clipped -------------
    | | |
    | | | Where would I start looking to track down this problem to fix it?
    | | | Solution is that the sender receives ONE email that dlawson is out on vaca.
    | |
    | | Nothing whatsoever to do with mutt. The script I wrote is tripping over uucp
    | | bang!addresses.
    | |
    | | Try replacing your /usr/local/lib/deliver.vacation with the following,
    | | after editing the LOCALDOM and the PLACE:
    | |
    | |
    | | ##### cut here --- file below stored as /usr/local/lib/deliver.vacation #####
    | | #!/bin/ksh
    | | # .vacation
    | | # 1.6 JPRadley 27mar07
    | | #
    | | # A user delivery file for when you're away.
    | | PATH=/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
    | | LOCALDOM=jpr.com
    | | PLACE="JP Radley, Inc"
    | | SP=`header -f X-Spam-Flag $HEADER`
    | |
    | | echo "$1" # First of all, keep the mail!
    | |
    | | case "$SP" in
    | | YES) exit ;; # replying to what is probably SPAM is a waste of time.
    | | esac
    | |
    | | # Do nothing more unless the message was directly addressed to you.
    | | header -n -f To -f Cc -f Apparently-To $HEADER |
    | | fgrep -iq $1@$LOCALDOM || exit 0
    | |
    | | # Don't waste any energy on daemons
    | | case $SENDER in
    | | uucp@$LOCALDOM|cron@$LOCALDOM|*daemon@$LOCALDOM|MA ILER-D*) exit 0 ;;
    | | esac
    | |
    | | typeset -l FROM=`header -f From $HEADER`
    | |
    | | # The ALREADY file remembers to whom you've already mailed vacation messages.
    | | ALREADY=vacation-list
    | |
    | | if fgrep X${FROM}X $ALREADY >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
    | | then
    | | exit 0 # We already notified this person; do nothing more
    | | fi
    | |
    | | # Remember this person
    | | echo X${FROM}X >>$ALREADY
    | |
    | | # Send the vacation message
    | | SUBJECT=`header -f subject $HEADER`
    | | mutt -s "I'm away from $PLACE" $FROM < | | Your message to me on the subject
    | |
    | | "$SUBJECT"
    | |
    | | has been delivered. I have not yet read your message,
    | | since I am away from $PLACE.
    | |
    | | I expect to return BEBACK.
    | |
    | | This is the only such notice you will receive.
    | |
    | | Thank you.
    | |
    | | !EOF!
    | |
    | | exit 0
    | | ######### cut here #######
    | |
    | | --
    | | JP
    | | ==> http://www.frappr.com/cusm <==
    |
    | Seems to work much better.
    | One noticable error is that a message sent FROM (ie) jeff@cactus.com
    | will reply to the SENDER as follows:
    | jeffrey@cactus.com
    | hyman@cactus.com
    | jeff@cactus.com
    |
    | # grep jeff /etc/passwd
    | jeff:zzzzzzzz:Jeffrey Hyman:/usr/jeff:/xxx/xxx
    |
    | It has also been tested outside domain 'cactus.com' with same results.
    | I will BOUNCE you a copy of this email.

    Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.

    A revised one is attached.


    --
    JP
    ==> http://www.frappr.com/cusm <==


  5. Re: mutt vacation-list issue



    On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:

    >
    > Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.


    Why not ditch the whole thing and use procmail. There are vacation
    receipes available on the web. Why re-invent the wheel?


  6. Re: mutt vacation-list issue

    jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:09:06AM -0700):
    |
    |
    | On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    |
    | >
    | >Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.
    |
    | Why not ditch the whole thing and use procmail. There are vacation
    | receipes available on the web. Why re-invent the wheel?

    Why should I use 'procmail' when 'deliver' (with its own vacation
    template script) works perfectly well, and existed years before the
    wheel known as 'procmail' was (re-)invented?

    --
    JP
    ==> http://www.frappr.com/cusm <==

  7. Re: mutt vacation-list issue



    On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:

    > jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:09:06AM -0700):
    > |
    > |
    > | On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    > |
    > | >
    > | >Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.
    > |
    > | Why not ditch the whole thing and use procmail. There are vacation
    > | receipes available on the web. Why re-invent the wheel?
    >
    > Why should I use 'procmail' when 'deliver' (with its own vacation
    > template script) works perfectly well, and existed years before the
    > wheel known as 'procmail' was (re-)invented?


    Because there are procmail recipes that do EXACTLY what you are trying to
    do and are available to anyone who can use Google? For example:
    http://www.clarkconnect.com/wiki/ind...o-Reply_Recipe

    This one allows a system-wide procmail recipe, which sends auto-replies
    only if the user creates a certain file in his/her home directory. The
    text of the message is taken from that file. It also has extra capability
    to avoid mail loop problems.


  8. Re: mutt vacation-list issue

    Quoting jd :

    >
    >
    > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    >
    > > jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:09:06AM -0700):
    > > |
    > > |
    > > | On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    > > |
    > > | >
    > > | >Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.
    > > |
    > > | Why not ditch the whole thing and use procmail. There are vacation
    > > | receipes available on the web. Why re-invent the wheel?
    > >
    > > Why should I use 'procmail' when 'deliver' (with its own vacation
    > > template script) works perfectly well, and existed years before the
    > > wheel known as 'procmail' was (re-)invented?

    >
    > Because there are procmail recipes that do EXACTLY what you are trying to
    > do and are available to anyone who can use Google? For example:
    >

    http://www.clarkconnect.com/wiki/ind...o-Reply_Recipe
    >
    > This one allows a system-wide procmail recipe, which sends auto-replies
    > only if the user creates a certain file in his/her home directory. The
    > text of the message is taken from that file. It also has extra capability
    > to avoid mail loop problems.


    Did you buy a new car when you ashtrays filled up?

    bkw

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

  9. Re: mutt vacation-list issue



    On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, brian@aljex.com wrote:

    > Quoting jd :
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    >>
    >>> jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:09:06AM -0700):
    >>> |
    >>> |
    >>> | On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    >>> |
    >>> | >
    >>> | >Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.
    >>> |
    >>> | Why not ditch the whole thing and use procmail. There are vacation
    >>> | receipes available on the web. Why re-invent the wheel?
    >>>
    >>> Why should I use 'procmail' when 'deliver' (with its own vacation
    >>> template script) works perfectly well, and existed years before the
    >>> wheel known as 'procmail' was (re-)invented?

    >>
    >> Because there are procmail recipes that do EXACTLY what you are trying to
    >> do and are available to anyone who can use Google? For example:
    >>

    > http://www.clarkconnect.com/wiki/ind...o-Reply_Recipe
    >>
    >> This one allows a system-wide procmail recipe, which sends auto-replies
    >> only if the user creates a certain file in his/her home directory. The
    >> text of the message is taken from that file. It also has extra capability
    >> to avoid mail loop problems.

    >
    > Did you buy a new car when you ashtrays filled up?


    OK, I'm totally puzzled. Why spend time trying to hack a script that does
    not work properly (that's what the original post stated) when there are
    working solutions already available?

    Apparently, to some people, there is some value in using crufty old tools,
    when there are better solutions available, but I just don't see it. I do
    subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy, but in this
    case, the starting point was broken and in need of fixing. The quickest
    solution would likely have been the installation of procmail.

    So, let me ask you: if it costs more to fix your car than to buy an
    equivalent new car, do you fix your old one? This is not like caring for
    a classic car, this is about providing a service to your clients in the
    most efficient manner, or don't you care about this?

    Another thought for you: Usenet provides a resource for many people, don't
    you think that if someone had no existing vacation solution and wanted to
    install something that discussing alternatives has value?

    But finally: I really don't see why the suggestion of a WORKING technical
    alternative should be met with an ad-hominem attack.

  10. Re: mutt vacation-list issue


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "jd"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:43 PM
    Subject: Re: mutt vacation-list issue


    >
    >
    > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, brian@aljex.com wrote:
    >
    >> Quoting jd :
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:09:06AM -0700):
    >>>> |
    >>>> |
    >>>> | On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    >>>> |
    >>>> | >
    >>>> | >Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.
    >>>> |
    >>>> | Why not ditch the whole thing and use procmail. There are vacation
    >>>> | receipes available on the web. Why re-invent the wheel?
    >>>>
    >>>> Why should I use 'procmail' when 'deliver' (with its own vacation
    >>>> template script) works perfectly well, and existed years before the
    >>>> wheel known as 'procmail' was (re-)invented?
    >>>
    >>> Because there are procmail recipes that do EXACTLY what you are trying
    >>> to
    >>> do and are available to anyone who can use Google? For example:
    >>>

    >> http://www.clarkconnect.com/wiki/ind...o-Reply_Recipe
    >>>
    >>> This one allows a system-wide procmail recipe, which sends auto-replies
    >>> only if the user creates a certain file in his/her home directory. The
    >>> text of the message is taken from that file. It also has extra
    >>> capability
    >>> to avoid mail loop problems.

    >>
    >> Did you buy a new car when you ashtrays filled up?

    >
    > OK, I'm totally puzzled. Why spend time trying to hack a script that does
    > not work properly (that's what the original post stated) when there are
    > working solutions already available?
    >
    > Apparently, to some people, there is some value in using crufty old tools,
    > when there are better solutions available, but I just don't see it. I do
    > subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy, but in this
    > case, the starting point was broken and in need of fixing. The quickest
    > solution would likely have been the installation of procmail.
    >
    > So, let me ask you: if it costs more to fix your car than to buy an
    > equivalent new car, do you fix your old one? This is not like caring for
    > a classic car, this is about providing a service to your clients in the
    > most efficient manner, or don't you care about this?
    >
    > Another thought for you: Usenet provides a resource for many people, don't
    > you think that if someone had no existing vacation solution and wanted to
    > install something that discussing alternatives has value?
    >
    > But finally: I really don't see why the suggestion of a WORKING technical
    > alternative should be met with an ad-hominem attack.


    The point is, the deliver script just uses things that are already on every
    sco box out of the box. No installation. It's always valuable to be able to
    get jobs done completely within the least common denominator if you can.
    It's more efficient, if less fun, than telling the customer you need to
    install something new and cooler. When you need a new or more sophisticated
    feature that simply isn't available, fine, then the overhead becomes worth
    it. But if as appeared to be the case here, the deliver script simply needed
    a little bugfix or tweak, I say it was smarter to do that.

    But... then again, I still write cgi scripts in, and do pretty much
    everything other than actual application coding, in ksh and awk instead of
    perl. By now I finally admit the main original arguments against doing
    everything in perl no longer applies, which was: I worked on lots of old sco
    boxes (as in, several xenix boxes even), and they had neither perl, nor any
    painless way to get it, but the very oldest still had ksh88 and awk. (and so
    did the few solaris, freebsd, linux, one hpux, one aix,...) Today all boxes
    have perl.
    The cpu/ram expence of loading a large interpreter like perl just to do
    trivial things that could be done with shell builtins and awk, etc...(heck
    I see people using perl just to do what cut does!) also mattered on those
    old boxes, but while the discrepency is still true today, really doesn't
    hurt much today.
    So I have to admit theres no special reason to avoid perl anymore except
    maybe for embedded or appliance developers, and even there theres an
    argument for perl if one perl binary can take the place of all the rest.
    Busybox pretty well proves that point I think.

    Even though I understand above enough to have just written it, I still just
    can't make myself not care about efficiency, and no matter how you dice it,
    throwing out an established working thing, which your consultant, who you
    pay a lot per hour, is many years fully familiar with, in favor of a brand
    new question mark (where is a procmail binary for sco? how do you use it?
    will it work with mmdf? does it have any dependancies like expecting a
    certain shell (bash), will sco's suid/euid/shell/child-process behaviour
    which differs from linux be a problem? will it need a big pain in the ass
    library package download? will I need to do unhygenic things to make room on
    my small root fs for said library update pack?etc etc etc), is just not
    practical unless you need something only available that way, or you
    consciously wish to explore the new possibilities and choose to take on the
    overhead of the change. BTW, before you dismiss the fud-sounding list of
    possible gotchas, every one of those are things I've actually run up against
    for real and had to spend considerable time dealing with. And surely I
    haven't managed to hit the last software integration problem yet either.

    My response was intended to be neither attack nor ad-hominim.
    It was merely devoid of all but the point. In my delusions of smartitude I
    might even wish to say, efficient.

    Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  11. Re: mutt vacation-list issue

    jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 04:43:33PM -0700):
    |
    |
    | On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, brian@aljex.com wrote:
    |
    | >Quoting jd :
    | >
    | >>
    | >>
    | >>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    | >>
    | >>>jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:09:06AM -0700):
    | >>>|
    | >>>|
    | >>>| On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    | >>>|
    | >>>| >
    | >>>| >Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.
    | >>>|
    | >>>| Why not ditch the whole thing and use procmail. There are vacation
    | >>>| receipes available on the web. Why re-invent the wheel?
    | >>>
    | >>>Why should I use 'procmail' when 'deliver' (with its own vacation
    | >>>template script) works perfectly well, and existed years before the
    | >>>wheel known as 'procmail' was (re-)invented?
    | >>
    | >>Because there are procmail recipes that do EXACTLY what you are trying to
    | >>do and are available to anyone who can use Google? For example:
    | >>
    | >http://www.clarkconnect.com/wiki/ind...o-Reply_Recipe
    | >>
    | >>This one allows a system-wide procmail recipe, which sends auto-replies
    | >>only if the user creates a certain file in his/her home directory. The
    | >>text of the message is taken from that file. It also has extra capability
    | >>to avoid mail loop problems.
    | >
    | >Did you buy a new car when you ashtrays filled up?
    |
    | OK, I'm totally puzzled. Why spend time trying to hack a script that does
    | not work properly (that's what the original post stated) when there are
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
    JD,

    I believe the original script I posted was authored by
    Jean-Pierre Radley [JP]. Even if not, the script had a
    problem and JP fixed it, and he did so rather quickly.
    I still have issues with UUCP, but the vacation-reply
    portion works like a charm. Its aways nice to know of
    alternative ways to fix any problem, but its also hard
    to beat some of the fixes given in this forum. There's
    a lot of brain power lurking here. I guess I lean toward
    the way Brian is thinking in his reply.

    In any case, please continue to add your feedback. All input
    is appreciated.

    - Jeff Hyman

    | working solutions already available?
    |
    | Apparently, to some people, there is some value in using crufty old tools,
    | when there are better solutions available, but I just don't see it. I do
    | subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy, but in this
    | case, the starting point was broken and in need of fixing. The quickest
    | solution would likely have been the installation of procmail.
    |
    | So, let me ask you: if it costs more to fix your car than to buy an
    | equivalent new car, do you fix your old one? This is not like caring for
    | a classic car, this is about providing a service to your clients in the
    | most efficient manner, or don't you care about this?
    |
    | Another thought for you: Usenet provides a resource for many people, don't
    | you think that if someone had no existing vacation solution and wanted to
    | install something that discussing alternatives has value?
    |
    | But finally: I really don't see why the suggestion of a WORKING technical
    | alternative should be met with an ad-hominem attack.


+ Reply to Thread