Philip Prindeville wrote:
Could we add an example of using envelope info?
SpamAssassin doesn't see the envelope. Some MTAs add headers for
envelope-header and envelope-recipients (Return-Path:, X-Apparently-To:, etc.)
If you're careful about how you call SpamAssassin you can fake envelope
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:59:29AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're careful about how you call SpamAssassin you can fake envelope rules
using these headers.
It's worth noting that there's a pseudo-header called EnvelopeFrom which
is available to header rules which attempts to figure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Could we add an example of using envelope info?
SpamAssassin doesn't see the envelope. Some MTAs add headers for
envelope-header and envelope-recipients (Return-Path:, X-Apparently-To:, etc.)
If you're careful about how you call
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Could we add an example of using envelope info?
SpamAssassin doesn't see the envelope. Some MTAs add headers for
envelope-header and envelope-recipients (Return-Path:, X-Apparently-To:, etc.)
If you're careful about how you call
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:59:29AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're careful about how you call SpamAssassin you can fake envelope rules
using these headers.
It's worth noting that there's a pseudo-header called EnvelopeFrom which
is available to header
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:28:52PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
What am I missing? Is SA not using the Return-Path: line by default?
It will, depending on where it's found in the headers, and if there's a better
header found first.
debug: all '*From' addrs: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
header EnvelopeFrom =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
ought to do it.
The header is just the address. envfrom= is output from the SPF
debug line.
Yup.
That works.
Now... Is anyone going to try to talk me out of this, on the basis of it
being unsound? ;-)
-Philip
Now... Is anyone going to try to talk me out of this, on the basis of it
being unsound? ;-)
The check someone (possibly you) showed about giving 6 points to From
@paypal.com appears to be unsound unless you are really sure you will
receive no paypal stuff. Which would probably be true of a
Loren Wilton wrote:
Now... Is anyone going to try to talk me out of this, on the basis of it
being unsound? ;-)
The check someone (possibly you) showed about giving 6 points to From
@paypal.com appears to be unsound unless you are really sure you will
receive no paypal stuff. Which
What better checks are you referring to?
Something I need to pull down from SARE?
sare_spoof or something like that, as best I recall.
Loren
10 matches
Mail list logo
