Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 13 May 2010 17:39:42 +0100 Ron White <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thank you Ian, that is really useful on more than one level. Has anyone >> ever told you that you are a guru at this Exim stuff and a very helpful >> chap too :-) Thanks. Really appreciated. >> > > No problem. I'd not really thought of this approach before. I wonder how > many false positives a strict approach would lead to! >
Not *quite* as strict, but we apply three strictness checks on format of envelope and headers (or their absence) and assign cumulative, weighted point scores to later compare to a per-user threshold. Our logs show that *of those tagged at all* some 96% eventually pass for either normal or sequestered delivery. Only 4% of those so tagged are eventually rejected - and that may be for unrelated reasons. So - JMHO - too much potential for falsing, too little useful meat on that bone. And I can safely shed three more acl clauses.. QED Bill -- ## 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/
