> I have talked to the SM tech support and have searched through their > forum but they believe this is SA issue.
It is and it isn't. The fact that they don't have a simple way of skipping their external test (and they have had many, many bugs over the past few years relating to incomplete bypassing of auth'd or whitelist'd mails) is an essential design flaw. That they are pushing back at you like that, instead of at least saying they'll add the feature in the future, is typical of their developers... and is the reason I never adopted SM. > That makes a lot of sense. Yes, I am familiar with writing batch > files. I am not a god at writing them but I can read and write them. Okay, you should be off to the races. > Yes we do use SMFilter but we call the spamassassin.bat from it. (I > didn't know we could compile an exe file) No matter. How you're calling SA (bat or exe), when you call it, is pretty much immaterial now. What you need to do is insert a layer above everything else, so that you have SM run _your batch file_, which in turn _optionally_ runs SMFilter or whatever you want. > Now, here is the issue I see with the bat file. > There are millions of key phrases. Really? Isn't the key phrase just the "authenticated..." line? Did you ask SM about that? _That's_ the only thing you need to search on. > Is there a way in the bat file to point it to some type of a list > such as the one spam assassin already has or some type of a > database. In a sense, yes, but you don't need to do that. > If I utilize: head -10 %1 | find /I /c "string" then this is going > to require me to enter each string on a separate line. I think you're confused about what you're searching for. The idea is to catch the header flag that means "this mail was auth'd." > Then that brings me to a point of asking, If I can utilize the SA > Database using that method, then what good is SA? The answer to that is way off this topic. Using a find command against a filter file is a tiny subset of what SA does. --Sandy
