[NOTE: Portions of the quoted message below have whitespace added to
prevent the OP's recipes from matching this message.]
On 19 Jan, ISMgr wrote:
| Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 and Postfix 1.1.11
|
| We are using a /etc/procmailrc file with the following content. Please
| excuse how basic it is. I am very new to Procmail.
|
| :0 B
| *^Content-Type: (application|audio)
| *^.*name=.*.(vb[esx]|ws[hf]|c[ho]m|bat|cmd|hta|exe|lnk|pif|scr|shs)
| /etc/messages-rejected
|
| ## p o r n s p a m
| :0 B
| * s e x|p o r n|l o v e r
| /dev/null
|
| ## N i g e r i a n s p a m
| :0 B
| * n i g e r i a
| /dev/null
|
| When I send an attachment that is an MS Office format (excel in this
| case), it isn't coming through at all.......no instance in
| /etc/messages-rejected, but the maillog stamps the acceptance of the
| message...
You'd be surprised how often the three letters "s" "e" and "x" appear
in sequence in encoded attachments. Remember, procmail is case
insensitive by default, so any combination of upper/lower case will
match. Further, the last 2 recipes would prevent you from seeing this
reply without the munging indicated at the top (unless you prevent
list messages from passing through these recipes, which is not
indicated). The second recipe is way too loose and will cause many
false matches. A verbose log file would almost certainly reveal this
recipe as the culprit.
--
Email address in From: header is valid * but only for a couple of days *
This is my reluctant response to spammers' unrelenting address harvesting
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail