Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> On 13 May 2010, at 15:50, W B Hacker wrote:
>> Have a look at Exim's 'verify = header_syntax' and its many finer-grained
>> sputniks. Also acl clauses you can hand-implement all the way down to minute and
>> insanely specific detail w/r substrings or individual characters.
>
> I suspect this is not looking at the same thing as the postfix option -
> which appears to be looking at envelope rather than header addresses.
>
> Nigel.
'Yes but' w/r 'sputniks' read 'fellow travelers'.
.. the Exim spec lumps most of the knobs in either 11.9 (per Ian's note) or in
44 and subsequent as 'The xxx header line'.
... so Exim offers more than one possible solution towards implementing what the
OP seeks to filter on/against - some with less risk of 'falsing'.
EG: if the submitter has done all or 'most' OTHER things by the book, I'd be
inclined to tolerate the odd imperfect MUA/MTA address composition -
*especially* w/r the sometimes absent '< ...>' enclosure.
On any but the most egregious violations, I simply assign points / headers that
MAY divert to 'Suspect' subject-line-munging and/or sequestering in the
'Suspect:' folder.
Which - ironically - happened on the OP's post...
;-)
Bill
