On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:16:42AM +0000, Roger Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you tried setting the "require_explicit_destination" option to "No" in
> the Privacy options... -> Recipient filters section of the administrative
> interface? As I understand the description, it should do exactly what you
> want:
>
> "require_explicit_destination (privacy): Must posts have list named in
> destination (to, cc) field (or be among the acceptable alias names,
> specified below)?
No, will try.
> Many (in fact, most) spams do not explicitly name their myriad destinations
This is factually wrong. I receive about 15 spams per day per list (about
680 in total, after greylisting), and the vast majority gets the list
address in some of the headers. At least, the _only_ mail that ever gets
caught by this setting is the freshmeat announcement sent tgo the list. No
spam ever was caught by that.
As a spam filter, this steting is completely useless. Maybe my spam has
different charaqcteristics then yours, but it least illustrates that spam
filtering is spam filtering, and arbitrary rules are arbitrary rules :)
> Note, I've not tested it to see if it actually works as described.
I'll do so, but I am confident, as I didn't try tjhis before.
Thanks a lot for describing this in so much detail, this was very helpful!
--
The choice of a
-----==- _GNU_
----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
