Spam report addressed to multiple people

[Glenn Steen]

2008/8/21 Andrew MacLachlan <andrew at gdcon.net>:
> Glenn Steen wrote:
>>
>> There are other effects, mainly with what you *cannot* do in a ruleset
>> while employing this setup, but I think those are covered in the
>> notes.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> When a message is addressed to multiple recipients, and some of the
> recipient domains are not serviced by the MailScanner system, how can I
> ensure that notification is not sent to them?
Some intelligent rulesets perhaps?

> Does this solution also work for CC and BCC recipients?
It works on the envelope addresses, regardless if they are "CC" or
"BCC"... Those things aren't concepts of the SMTP conversation.... All
recipients are "equal"...:-)

> I'm assuming that PF only rewrites the envelope when it splits the messages
> - not the to/cc/bcc fields that users see???
This will make multi-recipient mails be split into one
message/recipient. Any rewriting will only be as per the normal SMTP
behavior (Received:-lines added etc)... IIRC (I'm not using this ATM),
those headers will be left alone.

> Is it possible for MS to apply some cunning when it comes to notifications
> (i.e. a seperate notification to each user?) I already have a self-service
> release url at the bottom of the notification which relies on the recipient
> info supplied by MS, which would work well if MS took notice of CC and BCC
> lists as well as splitting the lists (currently MS supplies a comma
> delimited list of only the recipients in the to: field).
As said, this works on the envelope info, the actual things supplied
in the SMTP conversation (RCPT TO:<...>), where the concept of BCC/CC
just plain don't exist.

> Sorry to be a pain...
> -Andy
>

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se