3 replies in one email. (Which I meant to sent to the list, not Shane.
Sorry Shane)
On Thursday, Oct 3, 2002, at 15:04 Canada/Mountain, Shane Williams
wrote:
Not at all, or they don't want their subject/body changed?
Not at all, but whitelisting their To: might be good enough....
If the former (and your user isn't real with-it), you could add a
recipe in his .procmailrc that runs all his mail through spamassassin
-d and remove all the markup.
hmm... does that remove the headers as well?
On Thursday, Oct 3, 2002, at 15:19 Canada/Mountain, David W. Tamkin
wrote:
For the second, if the MTA honors .forwards files, the user can put
"|exec /path/to/procmail .procmailrc"
Woah. The .forward supercedes /etc/procmailrc ? Seems I should have
known (or maybe at one time did know) that.
Pretty sure postfix (v1.1.11) supports .forward correctly.
On Thursday, Oct 3, 2002, at 15:32 Canada/Mountain, Professional
Software Engineering wrote:
At 14:46 2002-10-03 -0600, LuKreme did say:
I have a /etc/procmailrc that runs al incoming mail through some
virus filters and spamassassin. I have a user account that does not
want the mail run through the spamassassin script (don't ask me).
Don't blame someone for wanting more control over their OWN email.
Oh, no, I don't BLAME anyone. I find it odd that spamassassin would be
something someone didn't want (especially since the /etc/procmailrc
doesn't delete any mail, just marks scores over 7), but I also didn't
say "No you stupid git!"
How about checking for a .nospamfilter file? is there a if (-r $FILE)
sort of command in procmail that could do somthing like:
$NOSPAM = $HOME/.nospamfilter
:0
<something to check if $NOSPAM exist>
{
INCLUDERC = $SPAMRC
}
or something...
this seems like the least work all around...
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail