>> I'd rather not block all noreply@ as it seems like overkill > > On the 'outbound'? How so? > >> and who knows >> what I might break. > > Whom? Most mailadmins. > > What? > > - Outbound: Nothing, really. Can't get anywhere anyway. > > CAVEAT: Despite the term, nothing prevents an(other) Mailadmin from making > 'noreply@' a valid user on his MTA, so sometimes these CAN be read. But > you are > safe in presuming NOT, 'coz that's wot the sender SAID they intended for > it. > > - Inbound: Blocked traffic from certain types of announce/mailing lists. > My > Korean Air mileage, electric utility bill, bookstore and supermarket > discounts > of the day. More importantly, planned outage warnings from the data centre > and > connectivity providers here, just to name a few. > > Those you ordinarily do NOT want to block or divert. 'Real' spam should be > (will > be?) caught by something other than a mere 'noreply@' in a header. > >> Also, rewriting the inbound mail is impossible as I >> don't know the proper destination when it is missing. >> > > Not 'impossible'. Just labour-intensive. It can be channeled to a > Mailadmin's > IMAP folder for analysis and manual onpassing. Or not. > > Think paper-mail postal service and their 'dead letter' office. Usually > they > manage to deliver even if all they have is a partial address. Or just a > first > name... Mark One human wetware is good at fuzzy logic. > > And .. I did say 'labour intensive'. > >> > > One - or both - of us is confused.. > > AFAICS, it isn't the *inbound* with a 'noreply@' that is your problem.... > Not > yet, anyway... > > (you have said) that it is *inadvertently replying to* an already-received > message from 'noreply@' and being left with no indication as to what > transpired > thereafter. > > Having your MUA redirect those replies - or throw a flag and refuse to use > such > an address - at the time you compose and send the attempted reply (so you > can do > something else before the fact..) seems to be the brain-crutch you need > if > actually looking at a header is overly onerous. > > 'nuf said... > > Bill > >
Right so after that round about, I'm still confused as to how to block outbound to [email protected] or what is wrong with the filter I'm trying to use. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
