On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Mark Edwards wrote:
> The spam_trap router is catching everything that has an X-Warning: header,
> including the copies that had been copied to the user "backup" by the
> system-filter.
Exactly.
> The system-filter "backup" copy actually gets to the
> spam_trap router first, but is redirected to the user "spam" instead of
> "backup" by that router. However, the log entry says spam <system-filter>
> because that particular copy actually originated in the system-filter.
> The other copies are discarded as duplicates.
Yup.
> I see two solutions. One is to make the spam_trap router deliver the
> address unseen. However, it wouldn't be much of a trap then, would it?
>
> The second, which I have chosen is to modify the spam_trap router thusly:
>
> spam_trap:
> driver = redirect
> condition = ${if def:h_X-Warning: {yes}{no}}
> data = spam,backup
> file_transport = address_file
Another solution would just be to exclude the user "backup" from the
spam trap:
spam_trap:
driver = redirect
condition = ${if def:h_X-Warning: {yes}{no}}
local_parts = !backup <=====================
data = spam
# file_transport = address_file <====== you don't need this
> 1) Do you think I'm still confused?
Maybe. :-)
> 2) Is there a way to set this scheme up that you think is better?
See above. But whether it is better or not is moot. I think it is a bit
clearer.
> Again, thank you so much for your time, and for your lovely software. The
> configurability is simply awesome.
Thank you.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
