Okok, I misunderstood this no_verify option. Adding this to the spam-router works as expected.
Thank you very much! Alexander Stintzing schrieb: > Hello Phil, > > thanks for your reply! > > The background of this setup is a per-domain-bayes db. I use the > exiscan-solution with other setups, but in this special case I couldn't > find a way to seperate the databases per domain by exiscan. > > So, for all domains, I added an system-user with the same name, so every > (system)user/domain has its own db. The spamc uses this users for > learning and checking. > > I bought the exim-book (Official Guide for Release 4) to get deeper, but > I don't understand, why the ACl doesn't work. I explicitly set > "verify_recipient" in the spamcheck routers, but this doesn't do anything. > > I also defined a router directly after the dnslookup with verify_only > and pass_router = spamcheck, but mails to a non existent user have been > accepted. > > Perhaps there is another solution for a per-domain-bayes-check? Perhaps > with exiscan? I didn't find some. > > At the moment I got stuck. > > Phil Pennock schrieb: > >> On 2008-09-01 at 19:44 +0200, Alexander Stintzing wrote: >> >> >>> I set up an exim with virtual users stored in a MySQL-Database. When I >>> send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it is scanned and delivered >>> correctly. But when I send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which >>> should be rejected immediately, it will be accepted at first, then it's >>> spam-scanned and after that, Mail delivery failed: returning message to >>> sender. >>> >>> Perhaps somebody will find the error: >>> >>> >> The spam routers accept all mail, so all addresses will verify. >> >> The entry in the ACL used for acl_smtp_rcpt which includes "verify = >> recipient" will not use the Routers marked no_verify for determining >> whether or not an address exists. However, if you do this then you'll >> accept spam and generate a bounce, producing backscatter. >> >> In simple configurations, you can get away with reproducing the >> recipient verification checks on the spam Router which accepts mail, so >> that it only accepts mail for those who would have been accepted anyway. >> This might be awkward with your setup. >> >> Which is why spam-scanning is really best not done by Routers, but in >> the ACL logic. You're using spamc to use spam-assassin as a client; you >> should look at setting spamd_address instead and then the 'spam' >> condition in an ACL. >> >> Read http://wiki.exim.org/ExiscanExamples to get some ideas of what you >> could be doing. >> >> -Phil >> >> >> > > > -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
