On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Professional Software Engineering wrote:
I personally save body scanning reciped until the end of my spam checks,
since they're potentially so much more costly. Yes, I have to tweak my
nigerian spam recipe every so often as well. Different "offical" offices,
countries, and other keywords.
Good point.
This is the only recipe I have with a "white" list. (If not addressed to
somebody at one of the domains I administer it's spam - this allows quite
a bit of spam to flow through.
The trick is that regulae mailing lists, or legit bcc's to you will also
trip on such a rule. Which is why it should be no more than a spammy
indicator - only in conjuction with other indicators would such a message
be determined to be spam.
Hmmmm. Ok - spammish. :) (But I'm going to try to write a better recipe
than what I have.)
I'm looking for "webmaster@", "info@", etc. which *could* be valid mail; and
there are some good recipes which look for an abundance of official-type
addresses (multiple-domain spams).
In the last three or four days I've received spam for both "webmaster" and
"info" - not worth messing with the list.
Ok. Currently I use LOG to record the "rule" that identifies a message as
spam. Looks something like:
But LOG emits it to the log - the rest of the recipe doesn't have realtime
access to that information.
I don't understand why it would need to.
Wouldn't the above need to contain the c flag in order to allow the
message to continue through the filters?
No, as it doesn't _deliver_. Thus, it just sets that variable and the
procmailrc continues along to the next recipe. Which has access to that
variable. If you look at the assignment, you'll note that it tacks the new
result onto the end of the previous contents of the same variable.
This just provided a few panic-filled moments! I had it in my head that
a recipe wouldn't continue without the c flag. Of course the fhw flags
didn't work either - no pipe! I think I'm ok now.
But how do I tie this to the message so I can file the spam when it has
completed a trip through the filters (without using formail)?
The VARIABLE. It remains set as you progress through the procmailrc.
Somehow I was afraid that the VARIABLE wouldn't necessarily accompany the
message through the filters. Sometimes I think funny, I guess.
This has been an illuminating session. I'm still not entirely convinced
that a message can be "spammish;" but you've made a couple of comments
that have shaken my conviction. :) Another Vermont yankee characteristic
I guess - hardheadedness!
- fleet -
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail