Hi, 2008/2/10, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Dan wrote: > > smtpd[1441]: connect from some.ip > > smtpd[1441]: NOQUEUE: filter: RCPT from some.ip: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Recipient address triggers FILTER > > dspam:unix:/var/run/dspam/dspam.sock; > > from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> proto=ESMTP helo=< > > some.ip> > > > > so you are using a check_recipient_access to select the FILTER. are you > aware that this doesn't work as intended with multi-recipient mail? only > one filter will be used, and the last FILTER statement wins.
Hmm, no I am not. This doesn't quite sound good ;-( Thanks for pointing it out. > Also, when changing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be redirected to e.g. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (i.e. external address), I afterwards see > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the output of dspam_stats. This is actually > quite > > annoying, as I'll have a few addresses where the incoming mail is split > into > > multiple (2-4) emails to different (external) addresses, and I would > rather > > that dspam would not handle them (and esp not store them). Any ideas how > > this could be done? I see how it makes sense if the new address is > local, > > but for external addresses I think this doesn't really make sense (they > will > > have their own spam filter at their site). > > > > you can remove the auto_increment from dspam virtual uids table, and > fill it manually. > > alternatively, if you don't want to filter outbound mail, then don't set > a filter for outbound mail. for mail submitted via sendmail, just add > "-o content_filter=" under the pickup service in master.cf. for mail > submitted via smtp, you can do something like this > > smtpd_sender_restrictions = > check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter_outbound > permit_mynetworks > permit_sasl_authenticated > check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter_inbound > > == filter_outbound > /./ FILTER dummy: > > == filter_inbound > /./ FILTER dspam: > > note however that any FILTER returned by subsequent checks will override > the above. once again, only one filter is set for a message. so the last > FILTER statement wins. Okay. Thanks for the suggestions and info, this has been really helpful. I think I will follow Jeff's advice and just add it as the delivery agent, though, this seems to be the simpler solution and should do the trick. Dan
