Unfortunately that just demonstrates the problem. If there is a "sender-blacklist-always" option, there should be a "sender-whitelist-always" option as well. If they both exist, which one takes priority?
However, I think I can offer you a consolation prize. I just remembered that the "filter-level" option takes precedence over almost everything else (sorry it didn't occur to me the other day). It can be used in a configuration directory to block delivery to any address, regardless of whitelists. So, leave the whitelist entry in your main configuration file (e.g. "[email protected]"). Then create a configuration directory for the address you want to block: .../_recipient_/tld/domain/_at_ Create a file within that folder named for the user: .../_recipient_/tld/domain/_at_/username Within that file, add the "filter-level" option: filter-level=reject-all Add the "config-dir" option to your main configuration file. That should do it! -- Sam Clippinger On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Lutz Petersen wrote: > > Believe me, there are good reasons to use whitelists within spamdyke > on bigger installations. Not because I'ld like yahuh, hotfail or so. > In the last time I see a trend that more and more spam seems to be > send out via mailservers from well known carriers/isps. The botnet > driven sites mainly go directly out and can relative easily be > filtered (rbls, spamdyke options, simscan-score-points, ..). But > those that comes in from huge mailservers you can't really block; > if doing so you would block 99,9% of ham mails coming in from there > too. > > In the past weeks we had a lot of success in blocking spam from > botnets - some of them can be simple identified by sender adress > etc. and with a combination of dns white-/blacklists _and_ rules > within spamdyke nearly all of these shit was blocked, very nice. > But - as I said - one will not block normal mailservers, and this > fine combinated rules worked fine for botnet-driven-pcs, but all > thos mail that came in via normal mailservers weren't blocked > because of the general whitelist behaviour in spamdyke. > > I understand sam, the rules are consistent and one should not > confuse the admin. So, what's about a additional rule named e.g. > > [email protected] > > or something like that? > > _______________________________________________ > spamdyke-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
