Re: Undisclosed recipients :; -- again

["Philip A. Prindeville" <ph...@redfish-solutions.com>]

On 11/30/2009 03:15 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 27.11.09 14:04, Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
>   
>> for the ruleset:
>>     
>   
>> header __L_UNDISCLOSED1         To:raw =~ /undisclosed-recipients: ;/
>>     
> just FYI, sendmail can be configured to do different things when To: is
> missing - there's sendmail option NoRecipientAction, configured by setting
> confNO_RCPT_ACTION m4 directive. The default value is "none" but e.g. Debian
> was setting it to "add-to-undisclosed" which causes MISSING_HEADERS not
> hitting (only from milter, which appears to be called before the headers are
> "fixed").
>
> Maybe you should look at your MTA's configuratioon options if it doesn't
> cause different rules hitting/not hitting, e.g. sendmail adds Date: and
> Message-Id headers which cause MISSING_DATE and MISSING_MID. I was not able
> to find how disable this behaviour in sendmail.
>
>   

Odd.  This is on FC11:

[root@mail mail]# grep confNO_RCPT_ACTION /usr/share/sendmail-cf/*/*
/usr/share/sendmail-cf/m4/proto.m4:_OPTION(NoRecipientAction, `confNO_RCPT_ACTION', `none')
[root@mail mail]# grep NoRecipientAction *.cf
sendmail.cf:#O NoRecipientAction=none
submit.cf:#O NoRecipientAction=none
[root@mail mail]# 

Added:

define(`confNO_RCPT_ACTION', `none')dnl


to the sendmail.mc, made sendmail.cf, did a service restart... will see what happens.

I can't remember: if an option is commented, is that showing us the default value typically?

-Philip