Re: Upgrading from 0.2.0 to CVS brings a recursing surprise

[Joe Maimon]

Dan Nelson wrote:

> In the last episode (Sep 22), Joe Maimon said:
>  
>
> > -B in CVS happens also when message is rejected
> >
> > Also again when the spambucket address rejects the rejected
> > copy....recurse.
> >    
>
> If your BCC address somehow causes another SMTP session back into the
> machine, then yes this might happen.  The only way I can think of it
> doing this is if the -B address is a generic one (say address@hidden)
> that routes to a "master" smtp server, which then rewrites the address
> to a local address (address@hidden) that happens to route
> back to the first server, which re-milters the mail.  Addresses that
> resolve to local accounts, or ones that resolve to remote accounts they
> stay remote, shouldn't cause problems.
>  
How is this? Spam that is rejected with the -r flag also gets the -b|-B 
flag applied to them in CVS.
This is direct change from 0.2.0

When this combination happens, spamass-milter does the spambucketing by 
spawning a sendmail and emailing the new message again -- through the 
very system that just rejected it.

Thus virtually guaranteeing a loop unless the -b|-B address or local 
mailling are protected from SA.

I submit that this SHOULD NOT be default behavior.

The old behavior was that -b|-B only happened if -r did not. It did not 
spawn a sendmail for the bucketing.
Again sub-optimal to not have some choice here.....

> I recommend adding all internal SMTP servers to the -i list, so
> internally-routed mail isn't checked.  Also speeds up routing, because
> a message is only checked once as it enters the system.
>
>  
Perhaps a -l that automatically did not scan email detected as local?

> > Did I miss anything?
> >
> > Would this behavior perhaps be better as an option?
> >    
>
> Which behavior?  Auto-ignoring mail sent to the -B address?  That's a
> good idea.
>  
Sounds good to me.