Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sigh. I think the logic is confusing matters.
Indeed.
> That I understand. However, as a result, if spamc *falsely*
> identifies a message to a keyword address (for instance), it will be
> held and not delivered. I want all keyword and sender tagged
> messages to be delivered, even if they look and smell like spam
> according to spamc.
Right, you can't do this currently. We have discussed a way to
trigger processing of tagged addresses from within the incoming
filter, but it hasn't materialized yet. In the recesses of my
consciousness, I seem to recall Tim looking into this and coming back
with a number of problems, but I may be wrong.
In any case, it's on my TODO (it has been lower priority because this
conundrum doesn't arise that often). This may change though, as I
really dislike the fact that the processing order is hardcoded like
this.
> In case you missed it earlier, my objective is a simple one: don't
> send confirm messages in reply to messages that look like spam.
It's easy, except for the issue with tagged addresses. So I think
you're SOL at the moment mate unless you're willing to relax your
requirements, or use regular extension addresses[1] instead of tagged
addresses. :-(
Footnotes:
[1] Which really isn't so bad. In fact, I'll even sheepishly admit
that I don't use any dated, keyword or sender addresses at all.
_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
