You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Steven Stern <su...@sterndata.com> on 2005/12/13 01:43:28 UTC
Whitelist one, whitelist all
I have one user who insists on seeing all mail sent to her. (OK, it's my
wife.)
I added "all_spam_to wife@my.domain" to local.cf and that makes it work
for her. However, if there are other recipients bcc'd on the the email,
then the all_spam_to negative score gets applied to the message and it
goes through to everyone. Is there a way around this? (Applying a patch
or update to the wife is not an option.)
--
Steve
Re: Whitelist one, whitelist all
Posted by David B Funk <db...@engineering.uiowa.edu>.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Steven Stern wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:55:59 -0600:
>
> > I'm doing this via spamass-milter at the MTA stage.
>
> Then the milter have to split all incoming messages in one per recipient
> and only check then. If it doesn't do this you are stuck at this point.
Brute-force approach; in your sendmail config set the maximum number of
recipients per SMTP envelope to one. This will force sending MTAs to
break messages into seperate tranasctions for each recipent. Not good
for a busy system, but workable for low traffic sites (home system?).
Don't do this for your MSA, as you cannot count on clients knowing how
to deal with the 4.5.3 status. Possibly have problems with brain-dead
MTAs too. ;(
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
Re: Whitelist one, whitelist all
Posted by Steven Stern <su...@sterndata.com>.
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Steven Stern wrote:
>
>>I have one user who insists on seeing all mail sent to her. (OK, it's my
>>wife.)
>>
>>I added "all_spam_to wife@my.domain" to local.cf and that makes it work
>>for her. However, if there are other recipients bcc'd on the the email,
>>then the all_spam_to negative score gets applied to the message and it
>>goes through to everyone. Is there a way around this?
>
>
> Depends on your setup.
>
> If you're filtering at the MDA layer (procmail), you'll need to start doing
> per-user configuration, and only have said all_spam_to in the user_prefs of the
> respective user, or better yet, just bypass calling SA for them entirely.
>
>
> If you are filtering using a "site-wide" configuration at the MTA layer (milter,
> etc), you probably can't fix this without some difficulty. The sticky issue here
> is there's one email, sent to two users, and SA has to either tag it or not.
>
> The usual approach to fixing this is to use a MTA layer integration that is
> capable of splitting-up multi-recipient messages into a bunch of
> single-recipient messages, bypass SA altogether for one copy, and give the
> others to SA. Not pretty, but some tools can do it (I forget which ones offhand).
>
>
> Both of the approaches involving bypassing SA will work a whole lot better than
> using all_spam_to anyway. all_spam_to will, for example, not prevent mail bcc'ed
> to your wife from getting tagged. It's just a whitelist based on what's in the
> To: and Cc: headers, and nothing more. While this can be useful, most of the
> time it's a kludge.
>
>
I'm doing this via spamass-milter at the MTA stage.
--
Steve
Re: Whitelist one, whitelist all
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>.
Steven Stern wrote:
> I have one user who insists on seeing all mail sent to her. (OK, it's my
> wife.)
>
> I added "all_spam_to wife@my.domain" to local.cf and that makes it work
> for her. However, if there are other recipients bcc'd on the the email,
> then the all_spam_to negative score gets applied to the message and it
> goes through to everyone. Is there a way around this?
Depends on your setup.
If you're filtering at the MDA layer (procmail), you'll need to start doing
per-user configuration, and only have said all_spam_to in the user_prefs of the
respective user, or better yet, just bypass calling SA for them entirely.
If you are filtering using a "site-wide" configuration at the MTA layer (milter,
etc), you probably can't fix this without some difficulty. The sticky issue here
is there's one email, sent to two users, and SA has to either tag it or not.
The usual approach to fixing this is to use a MTA layer integration that is
capable of splitting-up multi-recipient messages into a bunch of
single-recipient messages, bypass SA altogether for one copy, and give the
others to SA. Not pretty, but some tools can do it (I forget which ones offhand).
Both of the approaches involving bypassing SA will work a whole lot better than
using all_spam_to anyway. all_spam_to will, for example, not prevent mail bcc'ed
to your wife from getting tagged. It's just a whitelist based on what's in the
To: and Cc: headers, and nothing more. While this can be useful, most of the
time it's a kludge.
Re: Whitelist one, whitelist all
Posted by Rick Macdougall <ri...@ummm-beer.com>.
Steven Stern wrote:
> I have one user who insists on seeing all mail sent to her. (OK, it's my
> wife.)
>
> I added "all_spam_to wife@my.domain" to local.cf and that makes it work
> for her. However, if there are other recipients bcc'd on the the email,
> then the all_spam_to negative score gets applied to the message and it
> goes through to everyone. Is there a way around this? (Applying a patch
> or update to the wife is not an option.)
>
Upgrade to Wife 2.0 or install Mistress 1.0
This may, of course, foobar your system.
:)
Regards,
Rick
Re: Whitelist one, whitelist all
Posted by Rick Macdougall <ri...@ummm-beer.com>.
Steven Stern wrote:
> I have one user who insists on seeing all mail sent to her. (OK, it's my
> wife.)
>
> I added "all_spam_to wife@my.domain" to local.cf and that makes it work
> for her. However, if there are other recipients bcc'd on the the email,
> then the all_spam_to negative score gets applied to the message and it
> goes through to everyone. Is there a way around this? (Applying a patch
> or update to the wife is not an option.)
>
Sorry about that last message, didn't finish typing before hitting send.
How are you calling SA ? You might need to move it back in the delivery
stage instead of at the SMTP level.
Regards,
Rick