ons, 28.05.2003 kl. 01.11 skrev Jason Haar: > > I've got a user that needs to bow -completely- out of SA. This means no > > headers added, his mail must not be altered in any way by spamassassin. > > No choice there, it's what has to be done. > > If you have such a business requirement, then give him his own domain. > Either you're using SA site-wide or you're not. It's like saying "we're > running an email antivirus gateway, and one user must NOT be affected". Too > much hassle - move the problem onto another (virtual) box :-)
This is your experience to date, using your particular MTA - whatever that is. Your "new domain" solution is patently untenable for most organizations, could even conflict with organizational policy. Certainly both vanilla Exim 4 and SA-Exim 4/3 using header additions, ACLs based on those headers and subsequent header removal could cope with this, and in fact do as a matter of course in every-day use (i.e. my own MTA does this.) Or how do you think [EMAIL PROTECTED] could ever get sent unscanned messages in case of SpamAssassin producing false positives? Haven't had enough experience with Postfix 2.1 yet, but from what I've seen up to now, it could deal with this as well - as a matter of course (see the postmaster argument above.) Best, Tony -- Tony Earnshaw http://www.billy.demon.nl Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore. If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore. Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
