"Greetings" -- sendmail block

[Remco Barendse]

Cool! Unfortunately the only way for me to try it would be on a production
server because I don't use M$ Exchange at home :)

Could several of these rules be used in the sendmail conf file because
Exchange will send out unwanted messages with the following subjects:

Delivery Status Notification (Success)
Read:
Not read:
Gelezen:
Niet gelezen:

I wouldn't want to silently drop any regular mail that must go through the
server.

Is blocking these kinds of messages on the todo list of features to come
:) :) ????

Remco

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Julian Field wrote:

> At 08:43 30/10/2002, you wrote:
> >Would this also work for blocking the Delivery Status Notifications like
> >Read Receipt and similar messages?
>
> Probably, yes.
>
> >Or would this start a war between the linux mail gateway and the exchange
> >server resulting in tons of messages bouncing back and forth?
>
> You can send them to $#discard rather than $#error which, if I remember
> rightly, will silently throw them away.
>
>
> >On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Julian Field wrote:
> >
> > > In case you want to block this with sendmail, so that it never gets in to
> > > your site in the first place, this will do the job in your sendmail.cf
> > file:
> > >
> > > HSubject: $>Check_Subject
> > > D{FriendPat}you have an E-Card from
> > > D{FriendMsg}This message is probably a nasty E-Card.
> > > SCheck_Subject
> > > R$* ${FriendPat} $*             $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: ${FriendMsg}
> > >
> > > Remember that the whitespace before "$#error" has to be tabs and not
> > spaces.
> > >
> > > If you want to expand the list of subjects, just make more pairs of "D"
> > > lines to set the patterns and messages, and add a new R line for each one.
> > >
> > > At 17:18 25/10/2002, you wrote:
> > > >At 17:06 25/10/2002, you wrote:
> > > >>On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Julian Field wrote:
> > > >> > Would people prefer
> > > >> > 1) Replace the content of messages containing "nasty" headers such as
> > > >> this,
> > > >> > as if it was a virus
> > > >> > 2) Just flag is as spam and handle according to the normal "Spam
> > Actions"
> > > >> > ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'm writing (1) at the moment, but it just occurred to me that (2)
> > > >> might be
> > > >> > better.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Your votes please...
> > > >>
> > > >>This is mere speculation and may be impractical, but...
> > > >>
> > > >>How about making the behaviour (currently a proposed two-list of
> > > >>"virus-like" or "spam-like") somehow selectable by the sys.admin.??
> > > >
> > > >How did I know that someone was about to say that...
> > > >:-)
> > > >
> > > >I'm going to go with the SpamAssassin solution for now, it means less work
> > > >for me and I've had a long week. More brandy needed....
> > > >--
> > > >Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
> > > >jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
> > > >Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
> > > >                             Southampton SO17 1BJ
> > >
> > > --
> > > Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
> > > jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
> > > Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
> > >                              Southampton SO17 1BJ
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >--
> >This message has been scanned for viruses and
> >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> >believed to be clean.
>
> --
> Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
> jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
> Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
>                              Southampton SO17 1BJ
>
>


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.