Re: [exim] Filter Help

>> I'd rather not block all noreply@ as it seems like overkill
>
> On the 'outbound'? How so?
>
>> and who knows
>> what I might break.
>
> Whom? Most mailadmins.
>
> What?
>
> - Outbound: Nothing, really. Can't get anywhere anyway.
>
> CAVEAT: Despite the term, nothing prevents an(other) Mailadmin from making
> 'noreply@' a valid user on his MTA, so sometimes these CAN be read. But
> you are
> safe in presuming NOT, 'coz that's wot the sender SAID they intended for
> it.
>
> - Inbound: Blocked traffic from certain types of announce/mailing lists.
> My
> Korean Air mileage, electric utility bill, bookstore and supermarket
> discounts
> of the day. More importantly, planned outage warnings from the data centre
> and
> connectivity providers here, just to name a few.
>
> Those you ordinarily do NOT want to block or divert. 'Real' spam should be
> (will
> be?) caught by something other than a mere 'noreply@' in a header.
>
>> Also, rewriting the inbound mail is impossible as I
>> don't know the proper destination when it is missing.
>>
>
> Not 'impossible'. Just labour-intensive. It can be channeled to a
> Mailadmin's
> IMAP folder for analysis and manual onpassing. Or not.
>
> Think paper-mail postal service and their 'dead letter' office. Usually
> they
> manage to deliver even if all they have is a partial address. Or just a
> first
> name... Mark One human wetware is good at fuzzy logic.
>
> And .. I did say 'labour intensive'.
>
>>
>
> One - or both - of us is confused..
>
> AFAICS, it isn't the *inbound* with a 'noreply@' that is your problem....
> Not
> yet, anyway...
>
> (you have said) that it is *inadvertently replying to* an already-received
> message from 'noreply@' and being left with no indication as to what
> transpired
> thereafter.
>
> Having your MUA redirect those replies - or throw a flag and refuse to use
> such
> an address - at the time you compose and send the attempted reply (so you
> can do
> something else before the fact..) seems to be the brain-crutch you need
> if
> actually looking at a header is overly onerous.
>
> 'nuf said...
>
> Bill
>
>

Right so after that round about, I'm still confused as to how to block
outbound to noreply@??? or what is wrong with the filter I'm trying to
use.