If the forwarding is being done via .forward, why not just use procmail instead and check the message, then either drop it in your spool dir or forward it if it's not spam?
If you're using aliases or virtual user tables, you may want to have a look at one of the milters. I'm not a sendmail guru by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know if a rule could be used since SA typically gets the message after sendmail has released it. You could also use some sort of shell script which your alias would point to. The script could filter thru SA and take the appropriate action. E.g.: bob: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] in your aliases file could become: bob: |"/path/to/somescript [EMAIL PROTECTED]" ed: |"/path/to/somescript [EMAIL PROTECTED]" where "somescript" takes the message on STDIN, runs SA on it, then either stores it in your spool dir or forwards it to the address supplied as the argument. Be careful about locking your files if taking this approach. I don't know if virtual user tables have the same ability to pipe to a program - haven't had a need for it yet. | -----Original Message----- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike | Scheidler | Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:56 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: [SAtalk] How to prevent spam forwarding? | | | Hi all, | | I am setting up a new sendmail server to do site-wide spam filtering using | SA/spamd. I have this running successfully for a few accounts, and have | been quite satisfied thusfar. Using procmail as the LDA, I am delivering | the spam on a per-user basis to a special spool area, where it can be | scanned for false positives before being deleted. | | I have noticed, however, that spam destined for users whose email is not | delivered locally due to forwarding (via a .forward file or an aliases map | entry) is still being passed along. This makes sense since it never makes | it to the LDA, but I'd like to keep it from being delivered just the same. | I suspect that an appropriate sendmail rule that looks for the | "X-Spam-Status: Yes" header could do this, but I'm totally | inexperienced at | hacking sendmail rules. | | Is this a problem that someone has already solved, or is there perhaps a | better approach? | | -- | Mike Scheidler [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------- | This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek | Welcome to geek heaven. | http://thinkgeek.com/sf | _______________________________________________ | Spamassassin-talk mailing list | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk | ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
