Re: [Exim] BSMTP To: header rewritten, normal incoming mail …

Thus spake Philip Hazel (ph10@???):

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, D. North wrote:
>
> > I am trying to track down a behavior difference in exim's handling
> > of a To: address in the rfc822 headers when the message is received
> > via standard SMTP and when the message is received via batched SMTP.
>
> BSMTP messages are treated as locally-supplied, non-SMTP messages (the
> BSMTP syntax is just a convenient way of providing the envelope).

Understood. -- Perhaps I'm abusing the purpose of BSMTP a little then....
I use the pipe transport to route mail to SpamAssassin (SA), then use BSMTP
to re-inject it into exim for delivery. I'm having a hard time conceptually
with a percieved inconsistency in the changes that are applied to the message
in the process, because I want the message sent to SA to be re-injected into
exim exactly as it was sent out to SA, but with the SA modifications (only) added.
[And your identification of the fact that the BSMTP insertion is considered
'local' at least explains why there is a behavior difference. Thanks!].

Where this stemmed from was I have noted that a portion of spam I
receive contains 'To: LUSER@???' -- So I figured that the
spamware they were using was 'smart enough' to fake the name of the mail
gateway on the 'To:' line to try and sneak past the defenses. So, I added
rules to SA to add some significant points for 'To:' lines of this
format, but lo & behold, the rules didn't fire. That led me to the
discovery that the qualification was being added to the message
post-SA when I was using BSMTP to re-inject the message into exim,
and thus my desire for obtaining similarity of behavior.

Therefore, if I can get exim to do the 'To:' qualification for the normal
SMTP, then the SA rules will fire & life is good. If I can't have
that, then I want very much to try and keep the message contents as close
to original as possible after going thru the SA process.

> For BSMTP, why do you want to disable it?

As one method of gaining enough control of the process to make BSMTP and SMTP
both do the same thing.

> For the normal SMTP port, investigate sender_unqualified_hosts and
> recipient_unqualified_hosts (or was it receiver_unqualified_hosts in
> Exim 3?)

These do not seem to affect the 'To:' header rewriting though,
which is where the rub is...

Thank you for any further suggestions.
--
David North