>First, has the functionality been fixed in this version so that with >NotgreeyWhitelist set to 0, a whitelisted FROM address in the header >will consider a message to be whitelisted? This definitely wasn't >working with .09.
No this is/was not the case! But how ever, if a redlisted address was found the feature was disabled without a hint! >I'm obviously not understanding the logic A message gets white only if all found addresses are already whitelisted. "If set to 'check all addresses - all matches for white - add all', all defined addresses in all of these fields have to match to get white and all addresses will be added to or updated in whitelist." should be better "If set to 'check all addresses - all matches for white - update all', all defined addresses in all defined fields must be already whitelisted for a message to get a whitelisted state and all addresses will updated in whitelist." Thomas K Post <[email protected]> 31.10.2009 17:54 Bitte antworten an ASSP development mailing list <[email protected]> An ASSP development mailing list <[email protected]> Kopie Thema [Assp-test] more on NotGreedyWhitelist I've looked at 2.0.1 rc 0.5.10 and the new explanation of NotGreedyWhitelist. I'd like some clarification. Once I understand it better, I'll help to write up a clearer explanation for all. First, has the functionality been fixed in this version so that with NotgreeyWhitelist set to 0, a whitelisted FROM address in the header will consider a message to be whitelisted? This definitely wasn't working with .09. Before this version, this was either on or off. Off was the "normal operation" and when it worked (which wasn't the case with .09 and various versions before that) if the mail-from or from, sender, reply-to, etc So now, 0 is the default, and operates the same as the old default and 1 is the same as having this checked before right? It the new option (2) that I'm confused about: "If set to 'check all addresses - all matches for white - add all', all defined addresses in all of these fields have to match to get white and all addresses will be added to or updated in whitelist." It doesn't make sense to me that all have to match the whitelist in order for them to be whitelisted - they're already all on the whitelist. I'm obviously not understanding the logic or I'm not understanding the explanation. While we're on this topic, might it be useful to have an option to allow an address that is whitelisted already that appears in the sender lines (from, reply-to, list-from, etc) in the message headers to allow a message through WITHOUT adding the other addresses to the whitelist? This would let us whitelist the from: address of a mailing list, without worrying about getting every crazy unique mail from and reply to in the whitelist. I don't think there's any point in having one time addresses like: bounce-4vj3kjnvkjns43872.32344vlijnnsjknss552.5872...@whateverlist.com go to the whitelist. These are usually one time use addresses that identify the individual message that was sent. It's really the the it's the from adress or list-from address in the header [email protected] that's matching the whitelist, and that's what we care about. What I'd like to see, or at lease discuss, is having 2 options to replace the current NotGreedyWhitelist: 1) ConsiderMessageWhitelistedIf. This determines which address types allow a message to be considered whitelisted. This doesn't set which addresses will subsquently be whitelisted, just if the message whould be considered to be from a whitelisted address in the first place. Options could be: 0: mail-from matches 1: mail-from or any of the the sender headers like from: reply-to: list-from: etc (if any one can match) 2: mail-from AND any of the sender headers (all must match - seems awefully strict to me due to the varying unique one time use from addresses) 2) AddOtherFromAddressesToWhitelist If a message is considered whitelisted, determined by the settings in 1 above, should we add the other sender addresses to the whitelist. options are Yes or No. If set to no, then if a message is whitelisted because the from: address of [email protected] is already whitelisted, then the message will be considered whitelisted from #1 above. BUT the one time unique [email protected] wouldn't get added to the whitelist. I think this makes a lot of sense, but would like the experts' opinions. I believe that this would still let other recipient addresses (TO and CC) be automatically whitelisted (as long as they are not a local address or redlisted). I thought there used to be an option to turn this on or off, but i can't find it. on is fine with me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test DISCLAIMER: ******************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no known virus in this email! ******************************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
