SpamAssassin Rule Actions ignores Whitelist entries - BUG?

[Michael Mansour]

Hi,

--- On Thu, 25/3/10, Kai Schaetzl <maillists at conactive.com> wrote:

> From: Kai Schaetzl <maillists at conactive.com>
> Subject: Re: SpamAssassin Rule Actions ignores Whitelist entries - BUG?
> To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> Received: Thursday, 25 March, 2010, 10:31 PM
> Michael Mansour wrote on Wed, 24 Mar
> 2010 17:26:14 -0700 (PDT):
> 
> > However, even if the email is whitelisted (From or To
> addresses),
> > if the whitelisted email has a score above 18, it
> _still_ goes through
> > the rule above and gets emailed to highspam at domain.com
> 
> you are talking of MS whitelisting, right? It works that

Yes, the whitelist entries are obtained from both MailScanner and MailWatch.

> way that 
> whitelisted mail still gets spamchecked, it's just not used
> as a spam 
> qualifier. This must have some historic reason, e.g. it was
> the easiest 
> way to implement it and leave other stuff untouched. If you

Yeah, that may have made sense historically before the "SpamAssassin Rule Actions" was implemented recently, now though it doesn't really make sense since a whitelist entry should mean that whatever checks done on that message thereafter have no effect on it.

> do not want to 
> have the message "scored" you have to put it on the no scan
> list. However, 
> this also excludes it from virus scanning. Maybe that's a
> temp solution 
> for you?

Ok, I'll look into that now and see if I can find the option for it. Thank.

> It makes sense to not use existing scores for whitelisted
> mail in the rule 
> actions I suppose. But it's also possible that someone else
> then comes 
> along and says he needs it ;-)

I recognise the smiley, but I can't see much point in that honestly. But if that was the case, another option could be added to MailScanner to allow the admin to turn that on or off or make it part of a ruleset.

> I think the most convincing way would still be to stop
> spam-checking for 
> whitelisted mail. It's just extra unnecessary cycles. Now,
> with virus and 
> spam-checking order reversed that might be easier? Just
> speculating.

Yes I agree. Does Jules still read this mailing list? I don't see him post much these days, well at least not like he used to.

Thanks.

Michael.

> Kai
> 
> -- 
> Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> 
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> 
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the
> website! 
>