CiviCRM Community Forums (archive)

Trying to get bound processing working on 3.0.3.

It appears that compared to the demo site for 3.1 my 3.0.3 config doesn't produce the same mail header. But I can't find any place to make an adjustment.

I get the following header from my install. (return path is set to the from email address) VERP override is off.
Return-Path: <admin@wocumc.org>
Received: from westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net (westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net [69.89.10.186]) by maila61.webcontrolcenter.com with SMTP;
   Mon, 5 Apr 2010 13:00:03 -0700
Received-SPF: pass (westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net: domain of admin@wocumc.org designates 127.0.0.1 as permitted sender) receiver=westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net; client-ip=127.0.0.1; helo=westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net; envelope-from=admin@wocumc.org; x-software=spfmilter 0.97 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.0.0;
Received: from westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
   by westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o35K02fx017477
   for <dschafer@backofficethinking.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:00:02 -0400
Received: (from apache@localhost)
   by westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o35K02Ie017476
   for dschafer@backofficethinking.com; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:00:02 -0400
Message-Id: <201004052000.o35K02Ie017476@westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net>
X-Authentication-Warning: westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net: apache set sender to admin@wocumc.org using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: r.22.2901.617061e1959ffe40@westohiouumc.virtual.vps-host.net
From: "\"admin\"" <admin@wocumc.org>
Subject: Message bounce test
List-Unsubscribe: "" <mailto:u.22.2901.617061e1959ffe40@westohiouumc.virtual.vps-host.net>
To: "\"Role Tester\"" <dschafer@backofficethinking.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
   boundary="=_aa2eb4ec755fe40e446af014a30a317e"
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:00:02 -0400
X-SmarterMail-Spam: SpamAssassin 0 [raw: 0], SPF_None, DK_None, DKIM_None
X-SmarterMail-TotalSpamWeight: 0

I get the following header from the demo site.
Return-Path: <b.8.8.01b5a1bcc7d5b2ac@fixme.org>
Received: from sushi.osuosl.org (sushi.osuosl.org [140.211.166.55]) by maila61.webcontrolcenter.com with SMTP;
   Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:30:15 -0700
Received: by sushi.osuosl.org (Postfix, from userid 33)
   id 7B47D85EA; Mon,  5 Apr 2010 12:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: r.8.8.01b5a1bcc7d5b2ac@FIXME.ORG
From: "=?utf-8?Q?\"CiviCRM=20Test=20Mailer=20(=E6=B8=AC=E8=A9=A6again)\"?=" <info@test.com>
Subject: Test Mailing: Return path test
List-Unsubscribe: "" <mailto:u.8.8.01b5a1bcc7d5b2ac@FIXME.ORG>
To: "Charles Darwin" <dschafer@backofficethinking.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-CiviMail-Bounce: b.8.8.01b5a1bcc7d5b2ac@FIXME.ORG
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
   boundary="=_7806335b843d5b53d9109a31126d25a7"
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:30:14 -0700
Message-Id: <20100405193014.7B47D85EA@sushi.osuosl.org>
X-SmarterMail-Spam: SpamAssassin 0 [raw: 0], SPF_None, DK_None, DKIM_None
X-SmarterMail-TotalSpamWeight: 0

Return path is correct.   

Can anyone clear this up for me?

Also in the docs you should indicate that the default mail account is the one that is used for the VERP address.

Thanks

We're using sendmail on the local host.

The default mail account is the catch all set at bouncehandler@westohioumc.virtual.vps-host.net

Hi,

I'm confused, I thought the override VERP was only applying to replies, not to bounce ?

X+

As for the Return-Path:, my gut feeling is that either the install is patched to not set the Return-Path: or (IMHO more likely) the SMTP server overrides any user-set Return-Path: with the SMTP envelope’s FROM.

You are right, and I did patch it indeed
http://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-5946

dschafer, you will need to upgrade to the latest of 3.1 or backport it (nothing very complicated).

Hi,

Not sure it was the case to default to from (or that it was done on purpose . You might have chosen the right outbound option that did default it to the from, no matter if you did set the email processor or not.

I'm pretty sure there isn't any test to check if the mail processor is set or not. This being said, it should be complicated to implement and test that if the default email is FIXME or whatever is the default, then use the from.

Wanna get a go and try to add it ? Piotr, what do you think (vaguely remember having discussed it with you)?

X+

I respectfully disagree. You're going to have a lot of small orgs that are only using CiviMail for outbound email, or who's hosting environment won't accommodate the catchall requirements, or who have email server structures that don't easily accommodate the needs (Exchange, GApps).

While the php processing solution definitely makes full mail processing more attainable, I'm pretty sure there's still a healthy audience not able or interested in implementing it.

As it stands, mail processing requires non-interface involvement (cron job). So I don't think it's a stretch to say that you would need to flip a switch internally, in addition to setting up the cron job, to get that functionality working. Or at least implement X's proposal of reverting to the from email if no return account is configured. On that note -- why don't we just not ship with a return mail account dummy record? It has to be modified to work anyway. Ship with no record, ensure that the absence of a record means it uses the FROM address, and you won't need a mail processor "switch" -- if a mail processor record exists, then the switch is on, else off.

No doubt that the absence of mail processing won't scale. But for smaller orgs it's not necessarily an issue. It may even be a preferred process, as they'll be notified via email when a bad address is bounced and can address as it comes up, rather than running 'on hold' reports from the system.

My biggest concern is that it would be very easy to overlook the fact that a different reply-to value is inserted by default, if you're only focused on setting up the outbound piece.

Lots of discussions, no answers.