Spam Action rules: first match vs. all match?

[Steve Douglas]

I don't find the bounce of much use as long as MS catches the SPAM.  I had
this same scenario with 22-9.  The aggravation wasn't worth it nor the
questions from the users.

SD
:-)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Field [mailto:mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:28 AM
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Spam Action rules: first match vs. all match?
>
> What was the general consensus on this subject?
>
> Is it worth my implementing this "stop" keyword? It will cause a couple of
> extra "if" statements inside a function that is called a few dozen times
> for each message, so I don't want to add it unless quite a few people will
> find it useful.
>
> At 18:37 28/07/2003, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:02:33 +0100, Julian Field
> ><mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
> >
> > >What I thought about doing was adding a "STOP" entry in any of the "all
> > >matches" rules, so that evaluation of the rules for that
> recipient/sender
> > >would stop at that point and not carry on trying to match other rules
> in
> > >the ruleset.
> > >
> > >The rules would still be evaluated for all of the recipient(s) and the
> > >sender, but this would enable you to stop the rule checking when you
> had
> > >matched a previous rule.
> > >
> > >Would that solve the problem, or indeed help at all?
> >
> >How would that work?  If you mean something like this:
> >
> >FromAndTo: *@primary.domain forward zzz at yyy
> >STOP
> >To:  *@primary.domain bounce forward zzz at yyy
> >FromOrTo: default   deliver forward zzz at yyy
> >
> >meaning that when the STOP line is encountered, rule matching should
> >stop if any above rules had matched, that would work for me and would
> >actually add quite a bit of flexibility.  It would make it possible to
> >do things like have a specific list of users or subdomains in a domain
> >that get special treatment.  For example:
> >
> >From:  user1 at domain.com deliver
> >From:  user2 at domain.com deliver
> >From:  user3 at one.domain.com deliver
> >From:  user4 at two.domain.com deliver
> >From:  *@two.domain.com forward zzz at yyy
> >STOP
> >From:  *@one.domain.com forward zzz at yyy
> >STOP
> >From:  *@*.domain.com  bounce forward zzz at yyy
> >From:  *@domain.com  bounce forward zzz at yyy
> >
> >Semantics such as what would result from the above could be tricky to
> >achieve with either all or first rules.  If it weren't for user4, then
> >the above without STOP would be the same as if it were interpreted as
> >first match, but with the above as all with STOP implemented,
> >user4 at two.domain.com's actions would be "deliver forward zzz at yyy".
> >(Okay, this example would be easy to make work with first, but
> >still...)
> >
> >Another option I had been thinking about would be to able to mark a
> >single rule as exclusive, but I think the above is better.
> >
> >--
> >Jay Berkenbilt <ejb at ql.org>
> >http://www.ql.org/q/
>
> --
> Julian Field
> www.MailScanner.info
> MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support