On 15 Jan 2021, at 17:51, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) wrote:
All,
In doing a sort of my mailbox, I'm finding that there are many popular
spams with to: undisclosed-recipients. Which is *legal* but, in some
cases shouldn't exist.
In our particular use case, the box we're looking to protect is the
dayjob's info@ box. Nobody should be bccing the thing. It's mainly
handled by forms, but it's around for historical reasons. It's
long-lived.
But in looking at the spams I've recieved, I don't see that it matched
a specific rule.
Some of these messages are DKIM signed, so I know it's not just
something added by my MTA/MUA.
Has anyone come up with a rule that's "canon" or should I write my
own?
There is already an unscored subrule "__TO_UNDISCLOSED" which you can
use in meta rules. Subrules are not listed in the usual list that may be
added to a message.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
