[ngw] Auto response using noreply
CARONP at mmc.org
Wed Apr 28 17:59:37 UTC 2010
I'd also add on: VIEWNAME does not contain INTERNET
I don't send auto-replies to folks on the internet.
From: "Chad Griewahn" <Cgriewah at mitssupport.com>
To:"NGWList" <ngw at ngwlist.com>
Date: 4/28/2010 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ngw] Auto response using noreply
There does not seem to be a perfect answer but here is the logic I am considering testing:
If item is mail AND
If item is received AND
Subject does not contain "RE" AND
Subject does NOT contain <at least a majority of the subject line of the auto response email we send out> THEN
Reply (or send mail) using NoReply account
Thoughts? (I wish I could define a "does not begin with" condition)
>>> "Kevin Parris" <KPARRIS at ed.sc.gov> 4/28/2010 11:15 AM >>>
Now you see why "I want an auto-reply for EVERY message" is a wish granted only by evil genies. The good genies know that even they cannot handle an auto-reply function that sends messages to somewhere that might without notice become another auto-reply function.
>>> "Chad Griewahn" <Cgriewah at mitssupport.com> 04/28/10 10:32 AM >>>
Tested this. Not so much. We got up to 10 messages in just 2 or 3 minutes with an external test account with no signs of stopping. Is there a best practice on this I just am missing? It does appear that we could have the reply be sent from a different account within GW entirely. Would setting up a Noreply resource and using that work for this? We could then have all mail silently dropped to that account at the inbound gateway. I must be over thinking this problem.....
>>> Joseph Marton <jmmarton at gmail.com> 4/27/2010 10:20 PM >>>
Loop detection should pick this up and cut the replies after a few
have gone out.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Chad Griewahn <Cgriewah at mitssupport.com> wrote:
> That is a great point for one part of it. Thanks Joe. Still not sure of
> the best way to solve the issue though if the customer also has an auto
> responder on the other end.... By the very nature of the fact that these
> are for obituaries, that seems to happen extremely often.
>>>> Joseph Marton <jmmarton at gmail.com> 4/27/2010 4:15 PM >>>
> I wouldn't think you'd need to enable allow looping. Should just be
> able to add a condition of "subject contains *" to the rule to get it
> to work for every message from a sender instead of just the first one.
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Chad Griewahn <Cgriewah at mitssupport.com>
>> We have managers that want to start to put auto reply rules in place that
>> ALWAYS reply to any and every inbound message. Obviously this is not
>> considered a good idea but we have been overridden by management and now
>> must support this. We do want to avoid possible loops of course and due
>> the way our multiple gateways and domains are configured, must do this
>> a GW rule. For the rule to work as requested, it seems that we will need
>> enable the "Allow reply rules to loop" option.
>> I am wondering if there is a better way...? Has anybody else needed to
>> support an always auto reply rule? Should the auto reply rule say to be
>> "from" a noreply type account we create in GW?
>> Chad Griewahn
>> Infrastructure Engineer / Integrator
>> Booth Newspapers
>> cgriewah at mitssupport.com
ngw mailing list
ngw at ngwlist.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and prohibited from unauthorized disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ngw