On 2017-08-11, Rob Gunther via Exim-users <exim-users@???> wrote: > Yes, router based is what I was looking at. Here is a rundown of what I am
> trying to do. Let me say that there are NO local users on the machine at
> all. It is just for processing mail in, scan for spam, process some SPF
> stuff etc. and then back out for delivery.
> When a message comes in, I am using acl_smtp_data to check messages for
> spam. The spam checker has no idea who the user is, just gives its opinion
> of the spam content.
> We do not reject spam in the ACL, we accept all of it.
> We store the spam score and recipients to a variable in the ACL so the info
> can be referenced later.
> Then we drop down into the routers, where we do stuff with SPF, user
> aliases, domain aliases etc. One of the routers deals with catch-all, if
> the domain uses catch-all direct all unknown recipients to the catch-all
> Then the next router is deciding if the spam should be placed in
> quarantine. What was the spam score, what is the user preference etc. One
> of the conditions is if the message is a catch-all message or not, if it is
> a catch-all message there is no spam quarantine.
> So the decision of the catch-all router is what we are trying to gain
> access to. What action is the catch-all router doing and can we act on it
> in our quarantine router.
test the same condtions that the catch-all router tested but behave in
the opposite way?
set redirect_router in the catch all to skip the quarantine router?
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: