On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Alex wrote:
Would I need to create one ALL rule for each user involved?
Probably not, the username part could be
something like (?:user1|user2|user3)@example\.com
I don't understand how ALL would help here.
You can't incorporate matches in one rule into a different r
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Tuesday 28 March 2017 13:58:43 Alex wrote:
> I'd like to be able to use the fact that the To address is not the
> same as the address shown in the Received header in a meta of some
> kind.
>
> How frequent would you think that would appe
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:27 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Dominic Benson wrote:
>
>>> On 28 Mar 2017, at 19:04, Markus wrote:
>>>
>>> So you can't compare the "for " with "To:
>>> doro...@example.com".
>
> You can do that with a Header ALL rule; it will work more reliably as
On 03/28/2017 08:09 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> The "for..." clause is optional and a lot of MTAs don't add it.
> Almost all MTAs will refuse to add it if it's for more than
> one local recipient.
True, but that is what OP is asking about comparing to, which is why I
had mentioned it.
On Tuesday 28 March 2017 13:58:43 Alex wrote:
I'd like to be able to use the fact that the To address is not the
same as the address shown in the Received header in a meta of some
kind.
How frequent would you think that would appear in ham alone? It's the
basis for a number of phishing attacks h
