On 10/01/2015 18:10, Reindl Harald wrote:
I don't think I understand... Is this a strategy to allow me to reject
emails to list-specific email addresses (in the absence of the expected
"List-Id" header) - or something else?
Uhm - no
* Postfix adds the X-Local-Envelope-To header with the
rc
On 10/01/2015 18:10, Reindl Harald wrote:
I don't think I understand... Is this a strategy to allow me to reject
emails to list-specific email addresses (in the absence of the expected
"List-Id" header) - or something else?
Uhm - no
* Postfix adds the X-Local-Envelope-To header with the
rc
Am 10.01.2015 um 18:14 schrieb Steve:
On 10/01/2015 14:35, Jeff Mincy wrote:
use blacklist_to bogus_us...@mydomain.com ... This will lead to hits
on USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO
That works perfectly to blacklist 'completely bogus' "To" addresses.
Many thanks.
On 10/01/2015 14:36, Reindl Harald wrote
Am 10.01.2015 um 17:39 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
> On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 15:36 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> headerCUST_LESS_SPAM_TO X-Local-Envelope-To =~
>> /^(\|\)$/i
>> score CUST_LESS_SPAM_TO 4.0
>> describe CUST_LESS_SPAM_TO Custom Scoring
>>
> That is pretty much what I'd do, ex
Steve skrev den 2015-01-10 15:23:
If I were to have a list of a few dozen email addresses of the form:
bogus_us...@mydomain.com
onlyspample...@mydomain.com
...
unwantedrubb...@mydomain.com
blacklist_from *@mydomain.com
blacklist_to *@mydomain.com
unblacklist_to trusted_recipi...@mydomain.co
On 10/01/2015 14:35, Jeff Mincy wrote:
use blacklist_to bogus_us...@mydomain.com ... This will lead to hits on
USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO
That works perfectly to blacklist 'completely bogus' "To" addresses.
Many thanks.
On 10/01/2015 14:36, Reindl Harald wrote:
it can work like below by let ad
On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 15:36 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> headerCUST_LESS_SPAM_TO X-Local-Envelope-To =~
> /^(\|\)$/i
> score CUST_LESS_SPAM_TO 4.0
> describe CUST_LESS_SPAM_TO Custom Scoring
>
That is pretty much what I'd do, except that I wouldn't write the rule
directly because I d
Am 10.01.2015 um 15:23 schrieb Steve:
I have a domain for which (for historic reasons) I want a catch-all rule
to accept email. Until recently, Spamassassin has done a great job of
separating the ham from the spam. Recently, I've been receiving a large
number of spam emails which have been misc
From: Steve
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:23:36 +
I have a domain for which (for historic reasons) I want a catch-all rule
to accept email. Until recently, Spamassassin has done a great job of
separating the ham from the spam. Recently, I've been receiving a large
num
I have a domain for which (for historic reasons) I want a catch-all rule
to accept email. Until recently, Spamassassin has done a great job of
separating the ham from the spam. Recently, I've been receiving a large
number of spam emails which have been misclassified as ham. These
annoying
10 matches
Mail list logo
