Actually, I believe the CATCHALLMAILS test will do what you want. However, in this case, you would use "CATCHALLMAILS BOUNCE" instead of "CATCHALLMAILS HOLD".Thanks. But a catchall is exactly what I don't want. What I want is a bounce so the sender knows his mail was not accepted...
With "CATCHALLMAILS BOUNCE", all E-mails will be bounced -- except if you whitelist the sender.
That's an interesting idea. I'll have to see if it is possible to combine the ALERT action (which would behave in this case just about the same as the BOUNCE action) with the ATTACH action, which would allow you to send a bounce message and have an E-mail go to the recipient explaining that an E-mail from %MAILFROM% was blocked.Usually there is a process to inform the destination user if he wants to add the sender to his or her whitelist.
I'm guessing the "CATCHALLMAILS BOUNCE" combined with a whitelist would work best. However, you could likely accomplish the same thing with the weighting system.The lead ZDNet editor David Berlind and I have a dialog going and he is really down on blacklists and more or less endorsing the whitelist concept. So I am shooting for a way to manage this in Declude. I was thinking I could put high weights on all other emails with a bounce by default but give a white list negative counter-weights to let those through. Not sure his would work?
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
