http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3021
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-12 14:37 ------- Created an attachment (id=1765) --> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=1765&action=view) patches to implement this (see comment) This attachment contains the diffs for existing files that are being changed. The next attachment contains the test file and its data, which are all new files. This modifies the eval test for whitelist_from_rcvd and def_whitelist_from_rcvd so that as it looks for an address being in the whitelist it also notices if the address matches but the relay doesn't. If that is the case and there are no sender addresses found to be in a whitelist, then it is considered a forgery, triggering one of two new rules that this adds, FORGED_IN_WHITELIST or FORGED_IN_DEF_WHITELIST. There is a new option in Conf.pm called whitelist_allows_relays which has the same syntax as whitelist_from. It is to be used when an address listed in whitelist_from_rcvd or def_whitelist_from_rcvd may send non-spam mail through another mail relay that is not specified and therefore can't be used for whitelisting. The whitelist_allows_relays indicates that such mail should not be labeled as a forgery, but it is not whitelisted. Note: I don't like the name whitelist_allows_relays. I kept typing whitelist_allow_relays and forgetting whether I had named it with or without the 's'. Somebody should come up with a different name for that option that is not so subject to confusion before checking this in. The scores I assigned to the two new rules are arbitrary. There should be some discussion about what they should be. I do think that they have to get arbitrary assigned scores and not be part of the GA, similar to the scores for the other whitelist related rules. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
