Spam Action rules: first match vs. all match? (2)

[Tony Finch]

Julian Field <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>The other thing I have just implemented helps solve the problem of not
>being able to predict the result of a ruleset when there are lots of
>recipients which have conflicting results.
>
>Use Default Rules With Multiple Recipients = no

That isn't enough to get the behaviour we want. In particular, one of
the things I do quite a lot in my postmaster role is to send email to a
user and to postmaster@ (for our records), which should not be scanned
because postmaster is special. However in many (but not all) other cases
we want messages with multiple recipients to be scanned.

Apart from my soft rules idea, I have had very vague thoughts of
cascading rulesets, i.e. where the third field of a ruleset can
be another ruleset that is applied if an address matches the
rule instead of the rest of the current ruleset. If might also
be necessary to have negated rules, e.g.
        To:     !*@dotat.at     no
matches if any of the destination addresses is not in my domain.

Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
SOUTHEAST ICELAND: VARIABLE 3 OR 4. MAINLY FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD.