Custom function white/black list bug?

Scott Silva ssilva at
Mon May 22 18:19:46 IST 2006

Richard Lynch spake the following on 5/20/2006 2:06 PM:
> Julian Field wrote:
> {...snip...}
>>> I guess.  I've been using "default" for our_domain.  That way it
>>> applies to our_domain and some of the other domains we handle.  I did
>>> try putting abuse at our_domain in the
>>> spam.bydomain/whitelist/our_domain file and it still didn't get white
>>> listed.  It only started working when I added the...
>>> return 1 if $BlackWhite->{'default'}{$to};
>>> ...line of code to the function.
>> But the files are all users/domains/default recipients. Each line in a
>> file gives an entry for the sender going to the user/domain/default
>> specified by the filename.
> Yes, I understand.  That's why I modified the code with the line above
> so that it would also check the recipient.
> {...snip...}
>>> Well it doesn't work for me unless I modify the code as indicated in
>>> my original post.  In my case abuse at our_domain is the only
>>> recipient.  Looking at the code I don't see a check for the "To:"
>>> address in the default file.  I see a test for $from, $fromdomain,
>>> and $ip.  I don't see a check for $to.  That's why I added the line
>>> of code.
>> There isn't the $to check as the filenames are named after the
>> recipient users/domains/default. The contents of each file lists the
>> senders that are black/whitelisted for the addresses described by the
>> filename.
> So you're saying that the bydomain white list (and blacklist for that
> matter) entries are all aimed at allowing/disallowing senders to
> particular users/domains.  It has nothing to do with the recipient. 
> (That's what I was attempting to achieve with my modification -- which
> worked by the way.)
> This means there is no way for me to have a mailbox (abuse at
> setup such that mail from anyone at anywhere to that address gets delivered
> and not flagged as spam.
> The problem is that I have people on the internet reporting spam coming
> from our network by sending it to abuse at  However, our
> helpdesk people never see it because it gets detected as spam and
> deleted.  I tried putting abuse in the file but it doesn't
> work since this facility is looking for the sender (who could be anyone)
> rather than the recipient (abuse at
> I suppose I can get around this by coding a spamassassin rule that gives
> a large positive value for mail going to abuse at  I think I'll
> just handle it that way since I don't know the ramifications of the mod
> to the code.  Thanks for the clarification.
> Richard
I hope you meant a large NEGATIVE value. A large positive value will really
make it disappear.


MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

More information about the MailScanner mailing list