Re: [Declude.JunkMail] restricted mailing?

[Matt]

There's no "TO" filter, and no "FROM" filter either, only ALLRECIPS and MAILFROM (the SMTP Sender).  I would like to have access to these things though because there are some patterns that can't be done by way of a HEADERS filter. Anyway, you could use a filter file, but personally, I would think the Web mail address book would be easier to maintain. It would though affect all of your users to have AUTOWHITELIST on, and that can be especially problematic on very large domains since spammers will BCC multiple recipients sometimes, and one might have an address to their Web mail address book.  Small domains are not that big of a deal, just make sure that you don't list your own address in the address book because spammers will spoof the address they send to in the MAILFROM. The issue with all of this is that there's always the possibility of something being sent to multiple addresses on a domain, and having a whitelist setting or filter file affect that.  Declude treats whitelists globally, and filters can't be used with weights anymore reliably in this case, you need to rely on per-user actions instead of weights. Seems that NOT functionality would also benefit this scenario (and many others). If you are only looking to do this for one person, I would suggest going the IMail rules route.  That should be the most foolproof method, but again, don't add her own address in there.  If you want to offer this widely as a configuration to customers, some others on this list have done just this, but using the whitelist setting connected to the address book. Pete's idea wasn't bad, but you'll probably have a hard time telling Grandma to insert a string with ==$FasdJyeW34df*== in every message :)  I'm sure Pete's counterparts can figure that out though.  Seems most appropriate to discussions relating to spam though. Matt paul wrote: >>This isn't something that I would generally try to promote because of the >>complexity of maintaining it in most cases, but for one's own daughter, it might >>make perfect sense. Something of course though would need to happen that >>caused her to get spam though, so it might not be necessary at all. True, at first, it wouldn't be much of an issue. >>You would need the Pro version to do this of course, and instead of weighting >>things to her address, what you would do is set up a weightrange test covering >>almost everything and then use actions (HOLD, ROUTETO or DELETE)  in a >>per-user JunkMail file according to the Manual.  Whitelisting will prevent an all >>inclusive weightrange test from taking action on an E-mail. Ok, I hadn't thought of the per-user configs, we are running pro here, so that's not an issue. I'm just wondering the pros to that as apposed to what I had mentioned before. Wouldn't having a list of recipients <those that were under parental control> be easier to manipulate? Sure, I have access to all Declude to make adjustments, but to make it as user-hands-off as possible, you wouldn't want to do it that way......   I guess what I'm asking is: Does Declude have a TO: key? like:   mailfrom 15 is [EMAIL PROTECTED]  is there a mailto 0 is [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? I don't see this on the manual site.   So a filter file would be defined as:   parentalcontrols    tofile    d:\mail\imail\declude\parentlist.txt    x    100    0   So message comes in, it's addressed to someone in the file, given a 100 weight, and deleted. UNLESS the address is on the users webmail contact list.   I'm not trying to repeat the same thing over and over, but I'm not sure I'm describing this the way I'm trying to make it sound........ Did that make sense? LOL! Basically, does Declude allow you to scan for matches on the TO field?????   Thanks Matt! I'll look into the per user configurations as well.   Paul       -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =====================================================