On 24 May, Andrew Edelstein wrote:
| On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 09:32:55AM -0400, Don Hammond wrote:
| > Bottom line is I don't use the built-in ^FROM_DAEMON reg exp for this task,
| > so it doesn't match Precedence: bulk (or anything else) in list messages.
|
| Ah, so you were refering to a home-grown test for DAEMON messages, one that
| bypasses "Precedence: bulk" and similar characteristics of list mail that
| ^FROM_DAEMON catches?
Exactly. Kind of. ;-) I mistakenly referred to identifying DAEMON
messages when it's really part of verifying the authenticity of locally
originated messages. There's no generalized way to do this, at least
not to the extent I go, since each "type" of message (user to user,
cron, DAEMON) has differences, and I have a combination of null clients,
a mail hub and a smart host on the LAN with different sendmail versions
generating different headers. There are a handful of very comprehensive
regular expressions and scored recipes to check multiple headers,
including all the Received: headers, making sure they all "make sense"
with one another. The checking for DAEMON messages within this context
is only about their authenticity as local messages and not any attempt
to pluck all DAEMON messages. In short, locally generated DAEMON
messages will be caught here only because they are local.
As I said originally this is way overboard. It's more an outgrowth of
"playing" with procmail to see what I could make it do than anything of
necessity. But it's there, it works, and they're my cycles to waste. I
wasn't recommending it, and it really wasn't pertinent except to
illustrate to TJL that one could go to great and excessive lengths to
verify mail pretending to be local.
--
Reply to list please, or append "6" to "procmail" in address if you must.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to this...reluctantly.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail