On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, I.S. Manager wrote:
> I have this line in my config file:
>
> # reject by sender
> sender_reject_recipients = "+warn_unknown:\
>
> partial1-dbm;/etc/exim/sender_reject_recipients.db"
You want to reject recipients on the basis of specific senders. That
means the value of the option is an address list.
+warn_unknown is an item that appears in host lists. It has no effect
in an address list, which is just testing a known address without doing
any lookups.
> I have this in my "source" list:
>
> kenvarga.com
...
> And yet over the weekend I got yet another spam from kenvarga. Here's the
> headers:
>
> X-Persona: <pacific>
> Envelope-to: pacific@???
> Received: from [38.151.206.166] (helo=pbguw7.kenvarga.com)
> by rizzo.ipipeline.net with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
> id 13JHSy-0002R5-00
> for <pacific@???>; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:26:56 -0700
> Received: (from root@localhost)
> by pbguw7.kenvarga.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VFUX025820;
> Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:30:33 -0400 (EDT)
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:30:33 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-Id: <200007311530.e6VFUX025820@???>
> From: www@???
> To: pacific@???
> Subject: *** Marketing Tip of the Week Newsletter ***
> Data: ***** MARKETING TIPS OF THE WEEK NEWSLETTER *****
> Status:
>
> Shouldn't this email be blocked on the basis of the FROM header?
No. It is the envelope from address (return path) which is tested by
this option. You have not set return_path_add in your transport, so it
hasn't recorded what that was, but it will be in the log lines for that
message. Presumably it wasn't somethine@???.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
