-- means : - remove and - less strict (at config time)
-+ means : - remove and + strict or enhanced or forced - a some how
removal level (at runtime)
Who ever uses these switches, has to read and to think about before using
them.
>And I really like where this seems to be heading - a depreciation of
level definitions....
There are still over 1000 V1 and several older V2 installations (no
UserAttach) out there. I think, I must provided the levels for some more
time, to make an upgrade to V2 more easy.
Thomas
Von: K Post <nntp.p...@gmail.com>
An: ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net>
Datum: 05.09.2017 14:08
Betreff: Re: [Assp-test] fixes in assp 2.5.6 *Fortress* build 17247
Nice work! Your detailed descriptions will be quite helpful to many -
especially me when occasionally having to remember exactly the order that
things are processed. Thank you.
I worry a little bit about the choice to use -+ as a switch. How about
changing that to --- (3 dashes) or -_- or something else that doesn't have
a + in it. I worry that people might confuse the + as some sort of
special a way of adding a rule (which is wrong) vs negating one at
runtime.
And I really like where this seems to be heading - a depreciation of level
definitions....
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Thomas Eckardt <thomas.ecka...@thockar.com
> wrote:
Hi all,
fixed in assp 2.5.6 *Fortress* build 17247:
- ASSP_AFC 4.61 is released
- if any of HTML parsers was selected, the modul was not shown in Module
Stats screen
changed:
- an new exception switch is added to the 'UserAttach' function - ASSP_AFC
4.61 is required to provided this also for compressed attachments
(zip:...)
description changes:
....
Notice the leading -- in front of the --doc regular expression in the
last example. The leading -- removes all occurences of this regular
expression from the resulting entry,
here from "block-in" (NOT from block!) at configuration time. You would
need to define --doc in the "block=>" entry as well, to remove such
occurences there.
Because the -- exceptions are processed at configuration time, such a
definition will not overwrite an opposit rule definition: sender >
recipient and recipient < sender
- which are combined at runtime (attachment check).
If you want assp to process such a "remove extension directive" at
runtime (to make the recipient <> sender rule overwrite working for this
address),
use for example -+doc instead of --doc. Be carefull creating weak
blocking rules using the -+ directive. Make sure the sender and recipient
address can
NOT be faked (eg. SPF-strict, DKIM)
ASSP will resolve all extension regular expression templates and all
rule tempates and will combine them all in to one resulting domain or user
attachment rule.
ASSP will throw a warning, if a rule template is define multipe times -
like: *@domain.com=~~commonRule,~~devRule - here ~~devRule already
contains ~~commonRule
It may happen, that the resulting attachment rule contains one or more
extension regular expressions multiple times - this is harmless and will
be internaly corrected,
but try to prevent it.
This feature replaces all of the above level definitions (BadAttachL1
....L2 ....), if at least one valid (not zip:... from the ASSP_AFC Plugin)
attachment blocking
or allow rule is found for the envelope sender or the first envelope
recipient of a mail!
good, good-out and good-in - and also - block, block-out and block-in -
will be logical OR (pipe '|') combined from the matched rule for the first
envelope recipient
and the envelope sender - according to the mail flow.
The defined blocking rules for the envelope sender and the first
envelope recipient are than combined together using the same OR logic
(pipe '|') at runtime.
The attachment block rules for a specific email are looking as follows:
(replace block with good to get the attachment good rules)
incoming mail:
recipient-block|recipient-block-in|sender-block|sender-block-in
outgoing mail:
sender-block|sender-block-out|recipient-block|recipient-block-out
....
Thomas
DISCLAIMER:
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally
privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the
individual to whom it is addressed.
This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no
known virus in this email!
*******************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Assp-test mailing list
Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Assp-test mailing list
Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
DISCLAIMER:
*******************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally
privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the
individual to whom it is addressed.
This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no
known virus in this email!
*******************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Assp-test mailing list
Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
