Gary wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> Richard,
>>> If I wanted to only perform spam-handling for specific user email
>>> addresses and allow all other email to the domain to avoid
>>> spam-handling, would the following work:
>>>
>>> @spam_lovers_maps = ( read_hash("$MYHOME/spam_lovers") );
>>> @local_domains_maps = ( [".xyz.com"] );
>>>
>>> where $MYHOME_/spam_lovers contains:
>>>
>>> # Perform spam-handling for these users
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> # All other users opt out of spam-handling
>>> .xyz.com
>> Almost, but you got the syntax wrong.
>> You are using a syntax for ACL but using a hash lookup.
>> You can either do:
>> @spam_lovers_maps = ( read_hash("$MYHOME/spam_lovers") );
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0
>> # All other users opt out of spam-handling
>> # (no right-hand side implies true)
>> .xyz.com
>> Or use a lookup list instead of a hash:
>> spam_lovers_maps = ( read_array("$MYHOME/spam_lovers") );
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> # All other users opt out of spam-handling
>> .xyz.com
>> Mark
> In addition to Marks reply,
> what is listed above will not actually bypass spam checks for .xyz.com.
> Spam checks will be performed for all these users, but for .xyz.com, they
> will receive the spam regardless of what $final_spam_destiny is set
> to. If you were to set $final_spam_destiny = D_PASS, there would be no
> functional difference between the two sets of users listed here.
> To save some SpamAssassin processing, and further differentiate these two
> groups, I believe you could use the same table to also bypass spam checks:
> @bypass_spam_checks_maps = ( read_hash("$MYHOME/spam_lovers") );
> # bypass_spam_checks = false for these users
> # spam_lovers = false for these users
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0
> # All other users opt out of spam-handling
> # (no right-hand side implies true)
> .xyz.com
> This will not prevent spam scanning if a message is addressed to both
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (you would not want it to). If I am
> correct, I think it's a good idea to use both bypass_spam_checks and
> virus_lovers for those who wish to be excluded from spam processing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
spam_lovers
Correction! Very few people want viruses!
> Correct me if I am wrong.
Gary V
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
AMaViS-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user
AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3
AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
