Problem on whitelist/blacklist rules

[spart cus]

Steve Campbell <campbell at cnpapers.com> wrote:       No, you're overlooking the blacklist part. The  whitelist "no" parm you used for "test" indicates that it is not whitelisted and  must go through the normal steps of any other email. You need to add test to the  blacklist to make it definitely spam.
  
 You should use your example in a circumstance where  you might whitelist an entire domain, but want only the "test" address "not" to  be whitelisted. For example:
  
 In whitelist file
 FromOrTo:    test at domain.com     no
 FromOrTo:    *@domain.com    yes
  
 In blacklist file
 FromOrTo:    test at domain.com     yes
  
 This would exclude the "test" address from  whitelisting but whitelist everyone else in that domain . The blacklist would  make "test" definitely spam. The "no" in the white/black list is used mostly for  exclusions, the "yes" is for inclusion, for the white or black list file it is  inside of.
  
 By removing both entries above from the whitelist  and keeping the blacklist rule, you would be changing the strategy only for the  *@domain.com , as now everyone but "test"  would be required to pass your rules before it is delivered. As stands above,  everyone but "test" automatically passes.
  
 Clear? or more confusing?
  
 Steve Campbell
campbell at cnpapers.com
Charleston  Newspapers

  
 
 
Hi Steve,
 Got some part of it. Since im getting some spam mails, i just want to block certain sender. If thats the case then i would just add it on the blacklilst file. Is this correct ?
 
 In blacklist file
  FromOrTo:    test at domain.com     yes   # blacklist this sender
 
 FromOrTo:    default                        no   >>> ? Do i have to put these on the last line of my blacklist.rules ???
 
 tia
 
 

		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20060322/dca0e091/attachment.html