Out-of-Office email automation for MailEnable [v 0.1.8]

[shepler76]

someone_else, I am trying this out and have found 2 problems.

1. The response email (one with conformation number) or any of the emails from the out-of-office have a 1/7/2003 date.

2. I noticed that you are just sticking the email in the users inbox. This seems to cause some problems when using IMAP. Do you think it might be better to put it in the SF/Outbox ?

[someone_else]

The response email (one with conformation number) or any of the emails from the out-of-office have a 1/7/2003 date.

That's strange. Is this date written in the message header or displayed by the mail client?

All out-of-office messages are stamped with the system date as returned by the Windows Scripting Host, so either your system date really is 1/7/2003, or else somewhere along the way it is being replaced.

I noticed that you are just sticking the email in the users inbox. This seems to cause some problems when using IMAP. Do you think it might be better to put it in the SF/Outbox ?

What kind of problems? I only have MailEnable Standard, so there's no way for me to test IMAP compatibility.

Direct mailbox injection was chosen because it is the most efficient method. Passing the responses through MailEnable would only add overhead, which is something I try to avoid, if at all possible.

[shepler76]

The date in the header is correct, as well as the system date.
See below
---------------------------------------
Message-ID: <56B763EB91204F27A9833CD69FB06F09@htechconsult.com>
Date: 2/16/2006 9:51:26 PM
From: "Out of Office" <out-of-office@mydomain.com>
Reply-To: <out-of-office@mydomain.com>
To: shepler@mydomain
Subject: Out of Office confirmation request
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
User-Agent: OoOME/0.1.4

------------------------------------------------------------
But still shows incorrect date, but only using IMAP, I check using webmail and it was correct. Very strange, must be a Mailenable bug. As for the other question,probably is related to the first problem

[someone_else]

Version 0.1.5 is now available.



changes in this version:

- changed the datestamp to comply with RFC822 specifications

[rmorera]

Hi Someone_else!

I live in Brasil and think that's a good idea...
What about a translation to Portuguese? Can You help me do that?

Best regards!

Roberto

[someone_else]

What about a translation to Portuguese? Can You help me do that?

Well, if you can provide the translation, then sure. I don't speak any Portuguese, though, so I really can't help you with the translation...

[rmorera]

Ohh, no no no!
I do speak Portuguese, I´m brazilian...
I need to know how to translate, the sources, etc...
Thanks in advance, Someone_else!
Roberto

[someone_else]

Version 0.1.6 is now available.



changes in this version:

- fixed a problem with a wrong date being displayed on localized versions of Windows

[Moskjaer]

I have a suggestion, that would make it brilliant for my kind of use: It would be nice to setup which e-mail adresses should get the "Out-Of-Office reply" and which should not.

I subscribe to a lot of mailinglists and they would not be pleased with and "Out-Of-Office reply". Some of my other customers would be pleased to get a mail like that.

[someone_else]

I have a suggestion, that would make it brilliant for my kind of use: It would be nice to setup which e-mail adresses should get the "Out-Of-Office reply" and which should not.

Well, the actual auto-response procedure is handled by MailEnable; my utility only handles the creation/activation of the autoresponder, but after that, it's out of my hands, so to speak.

I subscribe to a lot of mailinglists and they would not be pleased with and "Out-Of-Office reply". Some of my other customers would be pleased to get a mail like that.

The autoresponders that my utility creates are given an "Auto-Submitted: auto-replied" header, as per RFC 3834 specification. What this does is inform the recipient MUA/MTA that this is an automated response; RFC compliant list servers will always ignore autoresponses, so there should be nothing to worry about.

[someone_else]

Version 0.1.8 of the Out-of-Office utility is now available. This revision fixes an issue with MailEnable installations which do not use the default paths. Thanks to Michael Seibold for discovering the issue and providing a fix.

Note that only the English version has been updated. If you wish to use one of the other language-specific versions, you can simply modify the text in the English version, as the script is no longer encoded. If modifying the script, though, you should be careful to only change message text; modifying the script parts might lead to unexpected and potentially harmful behavior from the utility.

[kather]

I just update ME Prof to version 2 and now I'm unable to use the out-of-office extention. In the logfile I get this message:

ERROR: Delivery Event (cscript.exe "C:\Program Files\Mail Enable\out-of-office\out-of-office.wsf" [*domain*] out-of-office 3948CA0C82074DBBB171B9A27F69B8CC.MAI) needed to be terminated because its execution time exceeded the specified limit. You should consider reducing the number of transfer threads or contact the provider of the delivery event for support.

where of course [*domain*] is the relevant domainname

Somebody any clou?

thanks

[ayjayef]

Version 0.1.8 of the Out-of-Office utility is now available. This revision fixes an issue with MailEnable installations which do not use the default paths.

PERFECT!
I needed OoO for a customer's ME installation, downloaded it, tested, worked a treat.

Its easy to use and the method of emailing as opposed to having to configure in webmail is a great method.

Thanks for your efforts on this very fuctional script.

[WebReliable]

how do i uninstall it?
j

[someone_else]

how do i uninstall it?

Remove or disable the out-of-office mailbox. Or disable it as a delivery event. If you have installed it, then it should be quite obvious how to uninstall it.