Hello, On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:22:26PM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Matthias Waffenschmidt wrote: > > > If the original message lacks certain headers like From: or Date: it > > would be fine, if there is a control, whether Exim should handle the > > reinjected mail as a locally generated one or more accuately to > > disable submission mode. > > It will not treat it as local if you submit it from a trusted user and > supply a remote IP address using -oMa, but that is very much a hack.
That's really a hack, but I like it 8-) BTW: It does not have to be a remote IP address, 127.0.0.1 has the same effect > > It is very nice (using the -F option), that there now is no misleading > > name in the From: header, but if the original sender did not enter a > > From: line, while should I add one? > > Because a message without an originator field or a date is syntactically > invalid. From RFC 2822: > > "The only required header fields are the origination date field and > the originator address field(s)." > > Exim doesn't like sending out locally-submitted messages that are > invalid. Sysadmins who are picky are justified in refusing messages with > no originator fields or no date field. I perfectly understand that point, but the fact, that it is locally-submitted, is somewhat artifical. > > The very same is true for the Date: header and even worse: > > SpamAssassin adds points and claims the test MISSING_DATE has matched, > > if there is no such header, but Exim adds the header during > > reinjection. This may cause some confusion... > > Sigh. Reinjection isn't as useful for this kind of use as perhaps one > might think. It don't like the reinjection (via -bS or SMTP) either (another ugly side-effect is the occurrence of two messages in the logs), but unfortunately I don't see another possibility. I really wonder why this questions did not raise earlier, because this method is the standard spam-checking method (besides exiscan) that a lot of people are using. > > A 'control = no_submission' as a new ACL option would probably also do > > the trick. > > Only if you re-inject using SMTP (*not* BSMTP) and can identify the > reinjected messages so that you don't do this for non-reinjected > messages. [You couldn't do this in the non-SMTP ACL because that runs > far too late; the submission stuff has already happened.] I see, thanks for the explanation. > So why not submit to 127.0.0.1 anyway and have done with it? You can > always use another port to identify reinjected messages (and reject > anyone else who connects to the port). That's another possibility, but I really like the -oMa option as there is nothing else I have to change in the current setup. Thank you very much for your help. -- Gruss / Best regards | LF.net GmbH | fon +49 711 90074-411 Matthias Waffenschmidt | Ruppmannstr. 27 | fax +49 711 90074-33 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | D-70565 Stuttgart | http://www.lf.net -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
