At 23:02 -0800 03/18/2005, Daniel Quinlan wrote: >Easier: > > header CF_NOT_FOR_ME ToCc !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL > PROTECTED])/i
Well, yeah, at least shorter and arguably cleaner but I was a) playing with meta rules and b) at one point had this idea that I might actually do something with the individual NOT_TO and NOT_CC information... I did switch to the shorter test above (last night) and the problem seems to be gone as far as my mailbox is concerned, which brings me back to my initial question: Why do spamd and spamassassin appear to have different results? Why does spamassassin seem to have no problems understanding header __CF_NOT_TO_ME To !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])/i header __CF_NOT_CC_ME Cc !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])/i meta CF_NOT_FOR_ME __CF_NOT_TO_ME && __CF_NOT_CC_ME and doing "the right thing" but spamd does appear to have problems and do the wrong thing. Is there something wrong with the header or meta rules above? Or is there something wrong with spamd? (We've passed the "get Vicki's configuration working" general tech support question and have now moved into the area of understanding and debugging the workings of SA and friends). -- Vicki Brown ZZZ Journeyman Sourceror: zz |\ _,,,---,,_ Code, Docs, Process, Scripts & Philtres zz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Perl, WWW, Mac OS X http://cfcl.com/vlb |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' SF Bay Area, CA USA _______________________ '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ___________________________
