Hi,
Sorry to follow up on my own mail, but I suspect you must be as confused
by my post as I was before I wrote it ;-)
> I am running into something I don't understand, so I come here for help :-)
>
> I am trying to bounce certain mail (identified spam) from a router. In
> this particular case, I can't reject the mail during SMTP, because one
> of my users doesn't want this kind of mail rejected, while others do.
>
> So, in this case, the mail is scanned, but never rejected. I have a file
> that contains all the domains that want to keep their spam:
>
> domainlist spam_domains = CONFDIR/spam_domains
>
> My first router looks like this:
>
> bounce_spam:
> driver = redirect
> domains = !+spam_domains
> allow_fail
> condition = ${if >{$spam_score_int}{65}{1}{0}}
> data = :fail: This message was classified as
> SPAM
>
> Now, while testing this setup, I see something I don't get. The
> spam_domains file contains on this single line:
>
> tinuzz.com
>
> Now, I expect mail that is addressed to anyone@??? to never be
> bounced by this router. However, it is:
>
> 2006-03-03 12:07:12 1FF87Z-0007sS-5z ** martijn@???
> <martijn@???> R=bounce_spam: This message was classified as SPAM
>
> In a later router, martijn@??? is redirected to martijn@???,
> and sipo.nl is not in +spam_domains, so that part I do understand. Even
> so, if I put sipo.nl in spam_domains, the mail is passed, as expected.
>
> What I _don't_ understand is, how the message even gets to that second
> router. It should just be failed by the router above en the redirection
> to martijn@??? should never take place. What am I missing here?
Alright, that didn't make sense. I wasn't thinking straight.
The mail should *not* be failed by this router, and in fact it isn't.
Instead, routing is passed on, and in a later router the mail is
redirected to martijn@???, which is then routed from the start. This
domain is not in +spam_domains, so the bounce_spam router handles the
message and bounces it.
I see that now :-)
So, what I actually want, is that the "bounce_spam" router only acts on
addresses that are not the result of another redirect router. Is there a
way of saying that? I haven't looked for it in the docs. Will do that
now, but hints are welcome, of course.
Thanks,
Martijn.
>
> Thanks for any advice,
> Martijn.
>
>
