Julian Field mailscanner at
Mon Feb 23 18:03:06 GMT 2004

At 17:17 23/02/2004, you wrote:
>Julian Field wrote:
> > What you have just witnessed is a problem raised by having messages
> > with multiple recipients. MailScanner doesn't generate mail messages,
> > so if you have 5 recipients with different actions, it has to make
> > some decision. In this case, I believe it uses the result from the
> > 1st recipient. Take a look in the Advanced Settings section of
> > MailScanner.conf where you will find this:
>This cannot be right as the ruleset was...
>To:     gp397 at       delete
>To:     g.pentland at  delete
>To:     jw at          delete
>To:     J.Watts at     delete
>To:     eks at         delete
>To:     E.K.Struzyna at        delete
>To:     lb3 at         delete
>To:     L.Williams at  delete
>FromorTo:       default deliver
>and j.watts was not the first recipient in that message...
>Feb 23 14:00:57 sendmail[10428]: i1NE0s7s010428:
>from=<acutebabe192kkoy at>, size=3898, class=0, nrcpts=5,
>msgid=<000611d7be47$dab24652$21337435 at efvfxrq.qdi>, proto=SMTP,
>Feb 23 14:00:57 sendmail[10428]: i1NE0s7s010428:
>to=<j.w.wan at>, delay=00:00:02, mailer=esmtp, pri=153898,
>Feb 23 14:00:57 sendmail[10428]: i1NE0s7s010428:
>to=<j.watts at>, delay=00:00:02, mailer=esmtp, pri=153898,
>...Sendmail thought j.watts was second.
>Maybe it's the first matching rule for any recipient... here the default
>being last so the j.watts rule matched first?
>Having re-read that extract I think this is the correct description of
>what happened here.
>Obviously Mailscanner doesn't create the mail but Mailscanner could
>remove a recipient from the mail but leave the rest of it/them in the
>queue.  I realise this is not easy to implement.

This only works for the "delete" spam action. But I agree it is a possible
solution to the problem in this case.

> > The other way of solving it is to use sendmail "Queue Groups" to
> > limit the number of recipients per message to a maximum of 1. How to
> > do this has been discussed here in the past, should be in the list
> > archive.
>This is not good for disk usage or speed in general as MS would have to
>scan a lot more messages but it would indeed solve the problem.

Julian Field
Professional Support Services at
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

More information about the MailScanner mailing list