On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 17:27, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
With body checks, is there a way to insert a header or otherwise flag
the mail in a way CMUSieve could detect?
Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
easily establish from the
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:47:10AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
easily establish from the manpage how the prepend action works.
So basically, the answer is no.
Behaving as documented is good. But is it the case that every
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:12, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:47:10AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
easily establish from the manpage how the prepend action works.
So basically,
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:53:56AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
And that is part of my thinking.
All the features that you can use are documented. The internals
that you can use to *reason* about the behaviour of the system
when things go wrong are less easily described.
There MAY have been some
Le 04/01/2011 16:53, Phil Howard a écrit :
[snip] So I'm thinking about an alternative where I do a
routine prepend of some very bizarre text (since it now inside the
message body), that would be very unlikely to ever be in any message,
and follow that with an external filter by inserting my
Phil Howard:
I'm assuming the header checks and body checks is implemented as some
code that sees a stream, rather than the whole message (especially
when doing body checks), so I'm guessing it would be non-trivial to
add a new action in a future version that would do a prepend to the
top of
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:14, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:53:56AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm assuming the header checks and body checks is implemented as some
code that sees a stream, rather than the whole message (especially
when
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
with amavis, setup a spamassassin rule that matches your bizarre text.
fopr instance
body FOO_BAR_RULE /SomeExpression/i
score FOO_BAR_RULE 0.1
(0.1 is small enough to not alter spam status).
then FOO_BAR_RULE will appear in
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:39:01AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
In other words, for the test itself to be changed (as a new kind of
test) to do what I need, it would either need random access to the
message file (which cannot happen here if the message is not yet
stored as a file), or has
Le 04/01/2011 17:44, Phil Howard a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
with amavis, setup a spamassassin rule that matches your bizarre text.
fopr instance
body FOO_BAR_RULE /SomeExpression/i
score FOO_BAR_RULE 0.1
(0.1 is small enough to not alter spam
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:20, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
another idea is to use the FILTER action to pass these messages to a
specific listener (smtpd) which prepends a header or rewrites the
recipient to recipient+s...@example.com (via a specific cleanup).
That's an interesting idea.
Phil Howard:
With body checks, is there a way to insert a header or otherwise flag
the mail in a way CMUSieve could detect?
Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
easily establish from the manpage how the prepend action works.
Wietse
12 matches
Mail list logo
