The Authorized TO: field ? |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
Lee 
Groupie 
Joined: 04 February 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 50 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: The Authorized TO: field ?Posted: 28 January 2004 at 1:05pm |
|
Does the Authorized To: field effect ALL domains or just the one specified ? Obviously if you put a Wildcard in the field I can see what would happen but if you entered bob@mydomain.com would that only effect user names sent to mydomain.com or would it also effect the other domains that are listed as local domains ? Lee |
|
 |
|
|
George
Guest Group 
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 January 2004 at 4:51pm |
|
It should only affect the email address listed to that domain unless you do something like username@* which would then apply to any domain. Logsat can verify if this is correct. g |
|
|
|
|
LogSat
Admin Group 
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4105 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 January 2004 at 10:47pm |
|
Lee, The "Authorized TO" list is a global list. If there is at least one email address in the list, it will cause SpamFilter to reject all emails, regardless of the domain, that do not have a recipient in that list. Roberto F. |
|
|
|
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4105 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 January 2004 at 10:49pm |
|
George, Actually that whitelist list is global to all domains. Per previous post in this thread: ==================== The "Authorized TO" list is a global list. If there is at least one email address in the list, it will cause SpamFilter to reject all emails, regardless of the domain, that do not have a recipient in that list. ==================== Thanks for all your help in providing answers to the forum! Roberto F. |
|
|
|
|
Lee
Groupie
Joined: 04 February 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 50 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 January 2004 at 10:59pm |
|
Roberto, Thanks. I guess that means if you enter one address you have to enter every user on your entire mail server. This is good to know. Lee |
|
|
|
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4105 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 January 2004 at 11:05pm |
|
That is correct. This behavior was requested by several administrators, who periodically dump a text file of all their users for SpamFilter to read. This happens in the background automatically, and allows a lot of illegitimate email traffic to be dropped. Roberto F. |
|
|
|
|
Lee
Groupie
Joined: 04 February 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 50 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 February 2004 at 12:14am |
|
Roberto, The new beta is great and I love the attachment filtering capability. As usual, Great Work !! I am always hesitant to suggest new features because I have worked in software development and understand the issue of "Creeping Feature-itest". There is a point where it becomes bloatware. Having said that I was wondering if you have considered adding LDAP support for Spamfilter ? My thought is this would allow SF to do a query for valid users with in the "Authorized To" field automatically from just about any mail server on the market. Not sure about performance issues and whether some form of caching would make sense with scheduled queries to add new users to the cache. Thanks again for your effort. Lee
|
|
|
|
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4105 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 February 2004 at 11:19pm |
|
Hi Lee, We've thought in the past about using LDAP queries for the Authorized to, but always stopped short of trying since we were concerned about performance hits when making such queries. It's something we'll eventually try, but not for a few months until we get the beta stabilized! Roberto F. |
|
|
|
|
Lee
Groupie
Joined: 04 February 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 50 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 February 2004 at 11:29pm |
|
I agree, the product is definitely going in the right direction and I would not start throwing in a bunch of stuff that would kill the performance. As I said, I was even hesitant to mention it and if you did do LDAP I would think some form of caching or scheduled replication would be more than adaquate. thanks again for all of your hard work. Lee |
|
|
|
Topic Options|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.207 seconds.