On Wed, 1 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> In the MTA, in a 'black box environment', a user has *zero* control over
> how the spam filtering is applied, or if it even *is* applied ... which
> also means *alot* of sites will not/do not implement it for fear of that
> *one* person that will cry foul that someone is 'filtering their mail' ...
> as part of "the filter", there is no filtering being done *unless* a user
> wants it, at the MTA level, *all* email is filtered regardless of a users
> desire ...
>
Well, this is true to some degree. Here is an excerpt from the
$sendmail_src/cf/README:
---------------------------------------
FEATURE(`delay_checks', `friend')
enables spamfriend test
FEATURE(`delay_checks', `hater')
enables spamhater test
If such an argument is given, the recipient will be looked up in the
access map (using the tag Spam:). If the argument is `friend', then
the default behavior is to apply the other rulesets and make a SPAM
friend the exception. The rulesets check_mail and check_relay will be
skipped only if the recipient address is found and has RHS FRIEND. If
the argument is `hater', then the default behavior is to skip the rulesets
check_mail and check_relay and make a SPAM hater the exception. The
other two rulesets will be applied only if the recipient address is
found and has RHS HATER.
This allows for simple exceptions from the tests, e.g., by activating
the friend option and having
Spam:abuse@ FRIEND
in the access map, mail to abuse@localdomain will get through. It is
also possible to specify a full address or an address with +detail:
-----------------------------
I suspect that you provide a web based access to sieve. You can easily
develop a web based program that manages access_db map as well.
-Igor
