On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Tony Finch wrote:
> > 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't speak for Chris's version, but in our department mailer the
operative clause for the spam-loving users (as opposed to postmaster
and abuse addresses, which are handled separately by means of a
local_parts clause) is just
recipients = +suckers
where the "main configuration" part has defined:
addresslist suckers = ...
with a list of actual addresses (could be an external file or db of
course).
The rest follows from that: if I'm not mistaken, this means that a
user could have one alias that allowed spam through and another that
didn't, although we haven't studied that requirement in detail.
> 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,
Well, the whole mechanism (as far as users are concerned) is what I've
already shown, so it does whatever it does, and seems to meet the
users' demands. Within the scope of our requirement, we haven't had
to tackle multiple-recipient aliases yet - other than with the
postmaster and abuse addresses, which send everything[1] to the
specified shortlist of minders.
cheers
[1]There's a tiny local blacklist for those idiots who spammed the
postmaster address. They get invited to contact the abuse address
instead.
