On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 08:25 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 13:27 +0530, K Anand wrote:
> >
> >> Matt Kettler wrote:
> >>
> >>> K Anand wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I have whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] in my conf.
> >>>> As per the docs, they say that whitelist_from will act on
> >>>>
> >>>> Envelope-Sender
> >>>> Resent-Sender
> >>>> X-Envelope-From
> >>>> From
> >>>>
> >>> "In addition, the ``envelope sender'' data, taken from the SMTP envelope
> >>> data where this is available, is looked up. See |envelope_sender_header|."
> >>>
> >>> So it should also, by default, match the Return-Path header.
> >>>
> >>> *HOWEVER* that assumes the header is present at the time of scanning.
> >>> Normally this header is not present at the MTA layer. It's a delivery
> >>> agent thing.
> >>>
> >>> Many MTA layer SA integration tools create a fake return-path header
> >>> and then remove it.
> >>>
> >>> SimScan (which you appear to use) doesn't do this, at least, the last
> >>> person who was asking about the same basic problem (although it was
> >>> relating to SPF, it still was failing due to lack of envelope
> >>> information at scan time).
> >>>
> >>> You might be able to use the same solution he did, which patches qmail
> >>> to add the envelope-from information to your Received: headers.
> >>>
> >>> See also:
> >>>
> >>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/QmailSpfPatch
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I'm using qmailtoaster which is netqmail + some patches which include a
> >> patch for spf (http://www.saout.de/misc/spf/). [...]
> >>
> >
> > your matter's point is not the Sender Policy Framework (SPF).
> >
> Yes, I know that. Please read the post where I suggested the SPF patch
> might fix his problem.
Matt, i didn't tell you. why did you reply for me? i was rather agreeing
with you on the spf's mention.
okay anyway you shoud make him(K Anand) do the spf patching with qmail.
--
"Until that time we have to guard against all treacheries."
-- Vito Corleone, "Chapter 20", page 296
