Mark Martinec a dit : > Gérald, > >> in fact this will be a simple and more universal >> "allow_non_encoded_8-bit_in_subject" > > Do not forget that the same problem often occurs in > comment fields of From and To header fields (personal name), > and sometimes in Organization etc, so a parameter name > like the suggested is too narrow. As a minimum it should > encompass From, To and Subject.
ok, so a list of allowed unencrypted headers would be the best I think ? >>> 2) distinctive logs and quarantine for banned content >>> (banned_extension, banned_mimetype etc.) >>> 3) separation of encrypted and signed messages filter with respective >>> logs and quarantine >> I merged 2) and 3) into something more generic where one can specify >> destiny, quarantine, and warning for each named rule in >> banned_namepath_re, I will only adapt the BANNED log to show the name >> of the rule implied if any. >> This way satisfies the more exotic wish of our client ;) and may be >> much more useful for anyone's needs, what do you think of it ? > > I think adding one indirection would make it more generic. > Currently the mail is classified (based on all checks) > into exactly one of the following categories: > infected, banned, spam, bad-header, oversized, clean > (in this order, first match wins). Based on the category > other actions are selected and controlled individually > per category name, e.g. spam_quarantine, spam_lovers, > admin, notifications, ... > > So I think that letting banned_namepath_re directly specify > one or two of these settings is wrong - not general enough. > It should only influence a (sub)category (e.g. banned-mime, > banned-i-hate-it, banned-xxx), this is exactly what I propose, a finer configurability for *banned only*, sorry if I didn't express it with enough clarity I realized that encrypted/signed where only special cases of banned content and didn't need the creation of a new first class category. In fact what you say is that it would be better to have a generic solution to refine any of the first class categories (I reformulate to be sure to understand) ? If my understanding is correct, what I propose is to do it (ie: I will do it) for banned by suggesting a solution that would be easily extensible to other categories, is it coherent to you? -- Gérald Macinenti Ingénieur OSS IDEALX S.A.S ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ 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/
