Tue Sep 11 12:04:38 UTC 2001
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Nicholas Piper <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > ... > > Ah; a very good idea. I use a .procmail script to invoke dccproc. I > > can just *not* pass the mail through dccproc based on procmail rules. > > Therefore I use procmail for identifying whitelisted emails, not > > /var/dcc/whiteclnt. > Yes, but don't you need to pass the dccproc result against procmail > rules to detect the thresholds? If I know I'm going to ignore the result I don't bother passing it through dccproc anymore. If I do pass it through dccproc, I check for above 20 and/or many flags. If it finds it is bulk mail, I set another header than Mutt will later use. > All of that means that it is a waste of effort to try to avoid > reporting the checksums of solicited bulk mail. Ah. From reading about the whitelisting feature in the documentation I was given the impression it was best to *not* report checksums of solicited bulk mail (I probably thought this because it mentions it can be used as a "privacy" tool; to not even realise the checksums of my private and known-to-be-ok mail). Nick -- Part 3 MEng Cybernetics; Reading, UK http://www.nickpiper.co.uk/ Change PGP actions of mailer or fetch key see website 1024D/3ED8B27F Choose life. Be Vegan :-) Please reduce needless cruelty + suffering !
More information about the DCC