Spam actions rules precedence

[Kevin Spicer]

On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 21:26, Denis Beauchemin wrote:
>User1 received an email that was on my blacklist (log says "is spam
>(blacklisted)".  Shouldn't the above rules have dropped it?

Say user1 is user1 at biblio.usherb.ca then the following rules match

To: user1 at biblio.usherb.ca     store delete
To: *@biblio.usherb.ca        attachment deliver

>Log says "actions are attachment,store,deliver".  Looks like it added
>them all.  I thought it would have used the first one (store delete).

That would be correct - obviously it can't delete and deliver the same
mail.

>How can I do this?  I am running 4.21-9.

I think Julian recently implemented some way of giving certain rules
precedence, but I can't find it documented in the distribution.  If its
there you'll need the latest version.  (Search the archives for Julians
post).

You will have to consider what happens when a mail arrives that is
destined for user1 and a.n.other.  How the rules resolve in this case.
Theres been some discussion about methods to split messages to achive
one mail per recipient on various MTAs but this might create too much
load.

My personal preference is to educate users on filtering their mailboxes
using the X-MailScanner-SpamScore header.




BMRB International
http://www.bmrb.co.uk
+44 (0)20 8566 5000
_________________________________________________________________
This message (and any attachment) is intended only for the
recipient and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  If you have received this in error, please contact the
sender and delete this message immediately.  Disclosure, copying
or other action taken in respect of this email or in
reliance on it is prohibited.  BMRB International Limited
accepts no liability in relation to any personal emails, or
content of any email which does not directly relate to our
business.