Roy Badami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > A workaround is to accept mail from 'mailer-daemon@*', which is > > usually the From: field on bounces. > > I currently accept that, too. However this isn't universal, and isn't > defined in any RFC as far as I can recall, so <> is safer.
Yup, it's not perfect. That's why it's a workaround. <wink> There's no real good solution to this that I can think of. The reason you can put your Aunt Betty's email address in your whitelist is because the spammers' don't know about the connection between the two of you. <> is a "well-known" address that every MTA is supposed to accept in order to ease the automated reporting of mail transfer problems. The spammers' abuse it, like they abuse the rest of the mail system, because they can. > However, one further comment, and one problem/feature request: > > First off, this was my first time trying to use tagged addresses, and > I got caught out by the fact that tagged addresses are only recognized > if they don't match any filter rules. I haven't seen this aspect > clearly documented anywhere (I ended up reading the source to figure > out how it worked :) It's also not entirely clear to me that this is > necessarily what one would want or expect, so I can see there may be > cases where it is useful. This is a question of what order addresses are checked. This has been discussed in the past but I don't think anything ever made it into the FAQ. First, the address is checked for whether it's a confirmation. Then the filter is checked. Third, if the address is tagged, it is verified and the appropriate action taken. Fourth, if none of the above are true, the default action (ACTION_INCOMING) is taken. What's at issue is the order of two and three. Consider a keyword address that you use at a website that is later sold to, uh, less savory characters, in a going-out-of-business sale. Or invent your own scenario. In any case, you will want to "revoke" that address. With the order of two and three as they are today, you can do that by placing that address in your filter and dropping it. If the order were reversed, you would always and forever have to accept mail from that address. It would be a built-in SPAM key to your inbox. We'd like to have the order configurable in some fashion, but nobody has come up with any proposal that feels natural and supports at least what we have now (revokation must always work). Tim _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
