Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

aliases : appending e-mail to a file permissions

Expand Messages
  • Randy Ramsdell
    Hi, I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by aliases. The file has perms of 600, owner nobody. The only problem with this is that
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 18 6:35 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
      "aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
      with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
      script that cannot access the file. The script runs as postfix and the
      file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
      that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
      as nobody.

      rcr
    • Victor Duchovni
      ... This is anecdotal report, please post concrete facts. - postconf -n output. - Relevant aliases file entries - Logs - Show permissions for every path
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 18 6:52 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:35:19AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:

        > I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
        > "aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
        > with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
        > script that cannot access the file. The script runs as postfix and the
        > file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
        > that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
        > as nobody.

        This is anecdotal report, please post concrete facts.

        - "postconf -n" output.
        - Relevant aliases file entries
        - Logs
        - Show permissions for every path component of the target file.

        --
        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:majordomo@...?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.
      • Wietse Venema
        ... What is the complete unmodified error message? What is logged in the maillog file? What is the line in the aliases file? Wietse
        Message 3 of 26 , Apr 18 6:58 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Randy Ramsdell:
          > Hi,
          >
          > I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
          > "aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
          > with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
          > script that cannot access the file.

          What is the complete unmodified error message? What is logged
          in the maillog file? What is the line in the aliases file?

          Wietse

          > The script runs as postfix and the
          > file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
          > that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
          > as nobody.
          >
          > rcr
          >
          >
        • Randy Ramsdell
          ... 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
          Message 4 of 26 , Apr 18 7:01 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Victor Duchovni wrote:
            > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:35:19AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
            >
            >
            >> I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
            >> "aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
            >> with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
            >> script that cannot access the file. The script runs as postfix and the
            >> file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
            >> that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
            >> as nobody.
            >>
            >
            > This is anecdotal report, please post concrete facts.
            >
            > - "postconf -n" output.
            > - Relevant aliases file entries
            > - Logs
            > - Show permissions for every path component of the target file.
            >
            >
            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.

            Aliases
            autoresponder:
            /tmp/FDC_RETREAT,|/opt/systems/mail/postfix/configs/atlanta_corp/autoresponder/autoresponder.sh


            Log:
            The logs show the email is sent to autoresponder which works as expected.

            ls -l /tmp |grep FDC
            -rw------- 1 nobody nobody 4249 Mar 26 10:09 FDC_RETREAT


            I assume the script runs as postfix since postfix runs as user:postfix.
          • Randy Ramsdell
            ... I assume the script runs as postfix. So running the script as postfix user gives permission denied. I added more to this in the response to Victor.
            Message 5 of 26 , Apr 18 7:08 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Wietse Venema wrote:
              > Randy Ramsdell:
              >
              >> Hi,
              >>
              >> I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
              >> "aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
              >> with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
              >> script that cannot access the file.
              >>
              >
              > What is the complete unmodified error message? What is logged
              > in the maillog file? What is the line in the aliases file?
              >
              > Wietse
              >
              >

              I assume the script runs as postfix. So running the script as postfix
              user gives permission denied. I added more to this in the response to
              Victor.
              >> The script runs as postfix and the
              >> file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
              >> that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
              >> as nobody.
              >>
              >> rcr
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
            • Victor Duchovni
              ... This assumption is unjustified. It is too much to ask for facts rather than anecdotes? Does nobody have access to the script file? Show permissions of
              Message 6 of 26 , Apr 18 7:21 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:01:23AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:

                > Victor Duchovni wrote:
                > >On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:35:19AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >>I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
                > >>"aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
                > >>with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
                > >>script that cannot access the file. The script runs as postfix and the
                > >>file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
                > >>that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
                > >>as nobody.
                > >>
                > >
                > >This is anecdotal report, please post concrete facts.
                > >
                > > - "postconf -n" output.
                > > - Relevant aliases file entries
                > > - Logs
                > > - Show permissions for every path component of the target file.
                > >
                > >
                > 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.
                >
                > Aliases
                > autoresponder:
                > /tmp/FDC_RETREAT,|/opt/systems/mail/postfix/configs/atlanta_corp/autoresponder/autoresponder.sh
                >
                >
                > Log:
                > The logs show the email is sent to autoresponder which works as expected.
                >
                > ls -l /tmp |grep FDC
                > -rw------- 1 nobody nobody 4249 Mar 26 10:09 FDC_RETREAT
                >
                >
                > I assume the script runs as postfix since postfix runs as user:postfix.

                This assumption is unjustified. It is too much to ask for facts rather
                than anecdotes?

                Does "nobody" have access to the script file? Show permissions of all
                path components of:

                /opt/systems/mail/postfix/configs/atlanta_corp/autoresponder/autoresponder.sh

                Why does the script need to access the /tmp file anyway, it should read
                the message via STDIN?

                --
                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:majordomo@...?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.
              • Randy Ramsdell
                ... I don t know what user runs the script. Since nobody has perms to run the script and the script fails when run as postfix user and postfix runs as
                Message 7 of 26 , Apr 18 7:40 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Victor Duchovni wrote:
                  > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:01:23AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >> Victor Duchovni wrote:
                  >>
                  >>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:35:19AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>> I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
                  >>>> "aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
                  >>>> with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
                  >>>> script that cannot access the file. The script runs as postfix and the
                  >>>> file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
                  >>>> that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
                  >>>> as nobody.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>> This is anecdotal report, please post concrete facts.
                  >>>
                  >>> - "postconf -n" output.
                  >>> - Relevant aliases file entries
                  >>> - Logs
                  >>> - Show permissions for every path component of the target file.
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> 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.
                  >>
                  >> Aliases
                  >> autoresponder:
                  >> /tmp/FDC_RETREAT,|/opt/systems/mail/postfix/configs/atlanta_corp/autoresponder/autoresponder.sh
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Log:
                  >> The logs show the email is sent to autoresponder which works as expected.
                  >>
                  >> ls -l /tmp |grep FDC
                  >> -rw------- 1 nobody nobody 4249 Mar 26 10:09 FDC_RETREAT
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> I assume the script runs as postfix since postfix runs as user:postfix.
                  >>
                  >
                  > This assumption is unjustified. It is too much to ask for facts rather
                  > than anecdotes?
                  >
                  I don't know what user runs the script. Since nobody has "perms" to run
                  the script and the script fails when run as "postfix" user and postfix
                  runs as "postfix" user, I assumed that the script was running as
                  "postfix" user.
                  > Does "nobody" have access to the script file? Show permissions of all
                  > path components of:
                  >
                  > /opt/systems/mail/postfix/configs/atlanta_corp/autoresponder/autoresponder.sh
                  >
                  >
                  yes
                  > Why does the script need to access the /tmp file anyway, it should read
                  > the message via STDIN?
                  >
                  >
                  I actually started out this way, but did not find a way to pass the file
                  to the script. This would be a better way however.
                • Wietse Venema
                  ... What is the complete unmodified error message? What is logged in the maillog file? You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that the script runs as
                  Message 8 of 26 , Apr 18 7:44 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Randy Ramsdell:
                    > Wietse Venema wrote:
                    > > Randy Ramsdell:
                    > >
                    > >> Hi,
                    > >>
                    > >> I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
                    > >> "aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
                    > >> with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
                    > >> script that cannot access the file.
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > > What is the complete unmodified error message? What is logged
                    > > in the maillog file? What is the line in the aliases file?
                    >
                    > I assume the script runs as postfix. So running the script as postfix
                    > user gives permission denied. I added more to this in the response to
                    > Victor.

                    What is the complete unmodified error message?

                    What is logged in the maillog file?

                    You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that the script runs
                    as Postfix. In fact, there are lots of barriers in Postfix that
                    work very hard to prevent you from doing that.

                    Wietse

                    > >> The script runs as postfix and the
                    > >> file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
                    > >> that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
                    > >> as nobody.
                    > >>
                    > >> rcr
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Randy Ramsdell
                    ... 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
                    Message 9 of 26 , Apr 18 8:35 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wietse Venema wrote:
                      > Randy Ramsdell:
                      >
                      >> Wietse Venema wrote:
                      >>
                      >>> Randy Ramsdell:
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>> Hi,
                      >>>>
                      >>>> I am trying to run a script that parses a file which is created by
                      >>>> "aliases." The file has perms of 600, owner "nobody." The only problem
                      >>>> with this is that the same aliase line that creates the file, pipes to a
                      >>>> script that cannot access the file.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>> What is the complete unmodified error message? What is logged
                      >>> in the maillog file? What is the line in the aliases file?
                      >>>
                      >> I assume the script runs as postfix. So running the script as postfix
                      >> user gives permission denied. I added more to this in the response to
                      >> Victor.
                      >>
                      >
                      > What is the complete unmodified error message?
                      >
                      > What is logged in the maillog file?
                      >
                      > You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that the script runs
                      > as Postfix. In fact, there are lots of barriers in Postfix that
                      > work very hard to prevent you from doing that.
                      >
                      > Wietse
                      >
                      >
                      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.




                      >>>> The script runs as postfix and the
                      >>>> file owned by nobody. What is the easiest way to resolve this? Ideally
                      >>>> that is a way to change the file ownership to postfix or run the script
                      >>>> as nobody.
                      >>>>
                      >>>> rcr
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                    • Wietse Venema
                      ... The Postfix sendmail runs as nobody just fine. If you want to be helped, then you need provide concrete facts, not assumptions. Wietse
                      Message 10 of 26 , Apr 18 8:41 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Randy Ramsdell:
                        > >> I assume the script runs as postfix. So running the script as postfix
                        > >> user gives permission denied. I added more to this in the response to
                        > >> Victor.
                        > >>
                        > >
                        > > What is the complete unmodified error message?
                        > >
                        > > What is logged in the maillog file?
                        > >
                        > > You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that the script runs
                        > > as Postfix. In fact, there are lots of barriers in Postfix that
                        > > work very hard to prevent you from doing that.
                        > >
                        > 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.

                        The Postfix sendmail runs as "nobody" just fine. If you want to be
                        helped, then you need provide concrete facts, not assumptions.

                        Wietse
                      • Victor Duchovni
                        ... 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
                        Message 11 of 26 , Apr 18 9:18 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 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).

                          - 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


                          --
                          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:majordomo@...?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.
                        • Randy Ramsdell
                          ... The responder is fixed as there was a small glitch dealing with the user postfix runs as. ... It does add Auto-Submitted: auto-replied , but I am not
                          Message 12 of 26 , Apr 29 6:29 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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.
                          • Victor Duchovni
                            ... 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
                            Message 13 of 26 , Apr 29 8:09 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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:majordomo@...?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.
                            • Randy Ramsdell
                              ... 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
                              Message 14 of 26 , Apr 29 8:26 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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.
                              • mouss
                                ... 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. ... but did you read RFC
                                Message 15 of 26 , Apr 29 1:42 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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.
                                • Randy Ramsdell
                                  ... 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
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Apr 29 2:03 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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.
                                  • Randy Ramsdell
                                    ... 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,
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Apr 29 2:34 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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.
                                    • mouss
                                      ... 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
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Apr 29 2:37 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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
                                        noreply@.... 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.

                                        -
                                      • mouss
                                        ... 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.
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Apr 29 2:41 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          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.
                                        • Victor Duchovni
                                          ... Also Precedence: list . -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. To
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Apr 29 4:40 PM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            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:majordomo@...?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.
                                          • Randy Ramsdell
                                            ... 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
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Apr 30 1:35 PM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              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 noreply@.... 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.
                                            • Charles Marcus
                                              ... 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
                                              Message 22 of 26 , May 1, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                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
                                              • Randy Ramsdell
                                                ... 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
                                                Message 23 of 26 , May 1, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  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.
                                                • Wietse Venema
                                                  ... 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
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , May 1, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    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
                                                  • 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 to write an
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , May 1, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      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!
                                                    • Wietse Venema
                                                      ... 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
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , May 1, 2008
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        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
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.