Chris Edwards <chris@???> wrote:
>
>So now we use the selective defer scheme as discussed before. It seems to
>work fine. See Alan's outline:
>
> http://www.exim.org/pipermail/exim-users/Week-of-Mon-20031006/061151.html
MBM told me about this trick on Monday evening in the context of dealing
with different policies between postmaster and other recipients. I like
it :-)
One question I have for you (since you've actually deployed it) is how
you deal with aliases. I can in principle deal with the case of aliases
like tony.finch@??? vs. fanf2@??? by pre-computing
a big lookup table generated from all our virtual domains, but I'm not
too fond of the idea -- it isn't very dynamic. I've asked Philip if it
would be possible to use the result of routing an address when verifying
it in order to feed back information to the ACLs, but this requires some
development work.
More tricky is the case when a recipient address resolves to more than
one person and they have different settings. Do you implement a separate
spam threshold for each alias, or smoosh the users' settings together
in some way to get some compromise threshold?
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot@???>
http://dotat.at/
ST DAVIDS HEAD TO COLWYN BAY, INCLUDING ST GEORGES CHANNEL: SOUTHEAST VEERING
SOUTH 3 OR 4. DRIZZLE AT TIMES. MODERATE WITH FOG PATCHES. SLIGHT.
