David B Funk wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Craig Jackson wrote:I notice that the return-path: is often different from the from: But my return-path: tests all fail. Here's one: header RETPATH_NUMS_CJ Return-path =~ /[0-9]{6,}/ score RETPATH_NUMS_CJ 3.000 It will successfully match From:addr or Reply-To: but Return-path is silent. Yes, I tried Return-Path, but I believe this is case insensitive. Can SA do this?Yes, -IF- the Return-Path header is present in the stuff that gets passed to your SA. 'Return-Path' header is usually not added by the MTA but by the delivery agent at delivery time. If you're calling SA before that point, then that header will not be in the stuff that SA has to look at. Return-Path is often used as a way to represent the envelope sender address in the header of a message. As that may change during the routing/processing of the message (EG a mail-list ;) it usually isn't generated until the final delivery point. So if you're using SA as a sendmail-milter, postfix filter, etc it's entirely probable that the Return-Path header isn't in the message that SA sees. I use SA with a sendmail-milter and ran into this issue early on. I ended up hacking the milter code to get it to synthesize a Return-Path header in the data as it passed a message to spamd.
You are right. Return-path is not being passed to Exim. RFC says it should not be available except at delivery time according to the Exim docs. But it can be made available simply by setting a custom header in the RCPT acl:
warn message = X-SA-Ret: $sender_address in the DATA acl, SA can test that header instead of the Return-path: Thanks, Craig
