On Oct 2, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Thomas Eckardt wrote: > Looks better. > > 1. if you meen a "local address", assp consider it has a 'local domain' , > which has to be defined in assp - any domain that is not defined as local > domain (flat file or LDAP) is not considered local > 2. set up 'NoAutoWhite', 'NotGreedyWhiteList' and > 'GreedyWhiteListAdditions' to your needs > > The Message-ID and the magled addresses are bugs I have to look at. This > should be fixed in the next release. > >> [email protected] >> [email protected]: added to > whitelist >> [email protected],[email protected]: > added to whitelist > > This does not meen that '[email protected]' is added to whitelist, see > the comma! It meens that ' > [email protected]' is added to > global whitelist and it is added to '[email protected]'s personal > whitelist.
Aha, this was part of the confusion for me then. So, once the mangled address bug(s) are sorted out, I think this is all answered. Just to be clear, which headers should be candidates for whitelisting? Only "From:"? "From:" and "Reply-to:"? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the two and get a better understanding. http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d _______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
