[Tickets #5974] Re: Inconsistent vacation excludes

[bugs at horde.org]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS NOT MONITORED.

Ticket URL: http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/5974
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ticket             | 5974
  Updated By         | gimili17 at gmail.com
  Summary            | Inconsistent vacation excludes
  Queue              | Ingo
  Version            | HEAD
  Type               | Enhancement
  State              | Assigned
  Priority           | 2. Medium
  Milestone          |
  Patch              |
  Owners             | Jan Schneider
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gimili17 at gmail.com (2008-07-28 08:52) wrote:

> I'm against using the Spam header because different spam filters use
> different headers and with Ingo it's really easy to have a spam
> filter rule *before* the vacation rule, so this is redundant. In the
> worst case it even applies a different spam rule than what the user
> usually does.

I think using the spam header would do more good than harm?  Perhaps  
in the mean time there could be a warning that the vacation will go to  
all lists and spam and a suggestion to create and enable a spam rule  
and move it before the vacation rule?  I know I would have appreciated  
that information.  I already have settings in sam and in a global  
.mailfilter but vacation replies were still sent to spam which I did  
not expect.

If the spam rule should be "*before*" the vacation rule then why not  
make that the default?  Thanks.