Outlook oddities #2

[Glenn Steen]

On 17 March 2010 20:45, Kevin Miller <Kevin_Miller at ci.juneau.ak.us> wrote:
> Steve Campbell wrote:
>> The warning in MW indicates "no watermark or sender address" so I
>> think I can do a hex dump on the quarantined file and see what's
>> causing the corruption.
>>
>> I'm still a little confused about having the address whitelisted from
>> which these users are sending, and why SA complains since it isn't
>> supposed to be checking these because of that.
>
> I never noticed it before, but all the whitelisted entries have SA scores associated with them.  Apparently SA runs regardless, but just passes them if whitelisted...
>
> ...Kevin

If you have the "Always include SA score" setting (probably named
slightly different... Bad memory day:-), MS will have to run SA for
everything, whether it is used as a "sorting criterion" or not.

That Steve has problems with the watermark feature (which is an MS
feature) marking some return receipts as spam ... kind of suggest the
sollution itself, doesn't it? Juts put a similar ruleset on that as
you have for the spam whitelist ... and presto, problem solved;-).

The settings to look at/put a ruleset on are (one of, depending on the
effect you want):
Check Watermarks With No Sender (to simply check/not check watermarks
for the whitelisted IP addresses)
Treat Invalid Watermarks With No Sender as Spam (to choose a different
action... "nothing" seems appropriate for the whitelisted ones:-)
But don't use "Use Watermarking" for the whitelist, since that would
effectively turn the feature off for relayed mail;-).

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