[Question] RE: sending warning message

[Eoin Kim]

Hey Glenn,


Thanks. I have been thinking about this for almost the whole day but doesn't look easy at my skill level. I need more time to think. Cheers.

Eoin Kim
Systems Administrator

RCS Telecommunications
Level 1, 133 Mary Street
Brisbane, QLD, 4000
Office: 07 3228 0843
Mobile: 0419 726 231
Email: eoin.kim at rcst.com.au<mailto:eoin.kim at rcst.com.au>


________________________________
From: MailScanner <mailscanner-bounces+eoin.kim=rcst.com.au at lists.mailscanner.info> on behalf of Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 7:12 PM
To: MailScanner Discussion
Subject: Re: [Question] RE: sending warning message

Hello Eoin,

Remeber that the handling of the recipient part, the FromOrTo thing in this case, only looks at the first recipient in multi-recipient mails. You need configure your mta (incoming, in case you use a multi-mta setup... For Postfix, the split will happen too late, in a single instance setup, so you need find/use my very old "two-instance-split-per/recipient" wiki article... if at all possible... or DIY;-)) to split incoming e-mails/recipient.

Cheers!
--
-- Glenn

2017-01-25 5:22 GMT+01:00 Eoin Kim <Eoin.Kim at rcst.com.au<mailto:Eoin.Kim at rcst.com.au>>:
Hello Mark,

That is a good question indeed.
    - First option is definitely not desired.
    - Second option looks okay but I guess the other way (From the Internet to my company) will be affected as well. I mean it will affect my scenario #2.
    - Third option means dropping the email without any notification?

It is a good question but very hard to determine. Let me think about it. Thanks a lot.

Eoin

-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner [mailto:mailscanner-bounces+eoin.kim<mailto:mailscanner-bounces%2Beoin.kim>=rcst.com.au at lists.mailscanner.info<mailto:rcst.com.au at lists.mailscanner.info>] On Behalf Of Mark Sapiro
Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 2:13 PM
To: MailScanner Discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info<mailto:mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>>
Subject: Re: [Question] RE: sending warning message

On 01/24/2017 07:54 PM, Eoin Kim wrote:
>
> Thanks for your message. Yes, you are right. At the moment, the receiver gets an email with an attachment (%org-name%-Attachment-Warning.txt). What I want to achieve is sending the message to the sender only because it's a sender's fault (e.g. double extension filename). So, it's a bit difficult to explain with my limited English but for example, when a company user sends an email with double extension filename attachment, then:
>
>     MailScanner: hey, you are doing a bad thing (to sender)
>     MailScanner: hey, he is doing a bad thing to you (to receiver)
>
> So, I don't want the second thing to happen. Is it possible? Thanks.


What do you want the recipient to get?

1) A message as sent by the sender with no alteration.
2) A message with the attachment removed with no indication or explanation of that
3) Nothing at all.

I'm not really sure if any of those options can be accomplished. My previous suggestion to use a Scan Messages rule set to not scan outbound mail will accomplish 1), but won't notify the sender.

In any case, once you clarify what you want the recipient to receive if anything, I'll think about ways to accomplish it.

--
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net<mailto:mark at msapiro.net>>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan


--
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info<mailto:mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner



--
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info<mailto:mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner




--
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20170125/92ac4aa1/attachment.html>