Dave Lugo wrote: > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, SeattleServer.com wrote: > >>>Is there a way to have exim call spamassassin with the user to whom >>>the e-mail is sent? >> >>Not unless your defer after every recipient in the RCPT ACL so that exim sees >>a new copy of the message (and thus a new instance of the DATA ACL) for each >>recipient. I really doubt you want that. >> > > > I currently do just that on a handful of vanity domains. In a low-volume > situation, it works perfectly fine. > > >>Run it through SA in the data ACL regardless. Add a header to the message if >>you want and/or set an ACL variable with the result. Then decide whether to >>accept or reject or filter it per-recipient in the router or whatever exim >>hands the mail off to (maildrop, for instance). You can use the ACL variable >>in the routers. >> > > > (I've been thinking of that as well, as the next project on my hobby > stuff) > > Another way to do it... > > I've been considering accepting multiple rcpt_to, and setting up > some sort of recursive loop in the DATA acl to churn through each > rcpt's SA prefs. > > . If all the recipients' configs say 'accept', it's 250'd. > > . If all the recipients' configs say 'reject', it's 5xx'd. > > . If some of the recipients' configs say 'reject', 5xx it, > AND give a detailed rejection message along the lines of: > > (adjust as needed for multiline responses) > > 550 One or more recipient addresses were unable to accept > this message. > REJECTED: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ACCEPTED: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > My possibly flawed thinking runs along the lines of: > > . real mailing lists use VERP, and don't do multiple rcpt_to > . stuff to multiple rcpts like this usually person-to-person, > and they might notice the rejection > > > Has anyone tried something like this? >
Sure. Since 2006. Works very well most of the time simply because: - many *of our* arrivals are single-recipient anyway (over 98% here), and Exim has an expansion variable that can tell you when not. - multiple arrivals are nearly always delivered one domain per connection, and a domain *may* have same/similar rules for all staff. Our busiest one DOES have. - an AWL check for 'well known correspondents' has been recently added to prevent rejection, even if they *might* later fail the scanning. Accordingly a bulk-rejection for some-other-user's thresholds is seldom seen *here*. CAVEAT ONE: Expect certain posters on this list to heave the odd brickbat at you if/as/when the message you return is not to their preconceptions... ;-) CAVEAT TWO: Our method WOULD be a major problem *elsewhere*, even with less contentious return messages. - Not everyone runs domain-wide preference settings. - Not everyone has a preponderance of single-recipient traffic. As to going further, Exim can be made more flexible, but the REAL 'Catch 22' is the way smtp itself is sequenced: - the MTA cannot scan a message it does not HAVE - 'Recpt To' is only a conversation whom is to receive/not a potential message, not yet the actual handover of said message. - 'Recpt To' is also the last opportunity to 'cleanly' reject on a 'per-recipient' basis. Bill -- ## 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/
