Whitelisting not working for forwarded messages

[jbs]

I have 87 filters set up in my Runbox account. I have a folder called "Inbox_Not_Whitelist" and there is a solitary filter moving messages there. It is the last filter, and it says:

If HEADER "does not contain" "USER_IN_WHITELIST" "saved to folder" "Inbox_Not_Whitelist".

Each time a desired message shows up in that folder I add the sender to my whitelist, and henceforth it will go into my Inbox (filter #86 moves anything WITH "USER_IN_WHITELIST" to my Inbox).

My wife, also a Runbox user, has a filter which forwards a specific message to my runbox account each morning. I added the sender of that message to my whitelist, but it's not getting the whitelist tag, and it keeps showing up in my Inbox_Not_Whitelist folder.

As you can see from the copied headers below, it IS getting Spam Assassin scanning (It has the "X-Spam-Status:" header. Interestingly, it also is identified by DSPAM as whitelisted, but since my filter searches on the SA tag for whitelisting, the filter moves it to the Non-Whitelist folder.

I know I could change the filter to search for either SA or DSPAM header, but I'd also like to find out if there's a glitch here preventing the proper Whitelist tag from being applied. Does it have to do with the message being forwarded from another RB user? I don't get it . . .

A few notes, first this is a very small text message, so it's not an issue of large messages not being scanned. Also, I did confirm that the name is entered properly on my whitelist, and third other messages coming into my Inbox from other senders do carry the appropriate Whitelisted header.

So, any ideas?

--Jason

From xxxxx@whitelist.com Sun Apr 03 11:12:09 2005
Return-path: <xxxxx@whitelist.com>
Received: from exim by snoopy.runbox.com with spamfilter (Exim 4.34)
id 1DI19H-0005zV-Oj
for jpxxxxxxxx+mailjs@runbox.com; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:12:08 +0200
Received: from [66.28.205.164] (helo=server72)
by snoopy.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1DI19G-0005z6-FR
for jpxxxxxxxx+mailjs@runbox.com; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:12:02 +0200
Received: from bfmail.mris.com [65.165.91.184] by server72 with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.05) id A38A2304009E; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 04:12:42 -0500
Received: from BLUEFIN1N2.mris.com ([10.20.82.131]) by bfmail.mris.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19);
Sun, 3 Apr 2005 05:11:07 -0400
Subject: Your requested update
From: homes@whitelist.com
Bcc:
Message-ID: <0cxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@bfmail.mris.com>
Date: 3 Apr 2005 05:11:08 -0400
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27,
account+at, 0.00010,
X-DSPAM-Result: Whitelisted
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9997
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on oscar.runbox.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,UPPERCASE_25_50,
US_DOLLARS_3 autolearn=disabled version=3.0.1
X-Spam-Level:

[carverrn]

Messages from other Runbox accounts do not go through the spam filters. The filter headers you see are the ones added when the message arrived at your wife's account.

Regards,
Rich

[jbs]

Thanks, Rich! Interesting, and good to know, thanks.

Looks like the solution will be to just have her account forward to an external address of mine, which in turn forwards to Runbox. That way it will presumably still move through all my regular filters.

I wonder why that is that messages internal to Runbox are treated differently? For whitelisting one person's filters are certainly going to be different from another's . . .

--Jason

[carverrn]

If the message comes into your wife's account why doesn't she whitelist it since she expects it anyways. Then your filter will she the USER_IN_WHITELIST from her spam checks.

Regards,
Rich

[jbs]

Originally posted by carverrn
If the message comes into your wife's account why doesn't she whitelist it since she expects it anyways. Then your filter will she the USER_IN_WHITELIST from her spam checks.

Regards,
Rich

Yup, could easily be accomplished that way, but she does not use the whitelisting feature. And, since I always like to approach these things philosophically, rather than, you kow, PRACTICALLY, one user's whitelist shouldn't actually mean the sender is acceptable to another user. One man's ham is another man's spam after all . . .

I'm more thinking of an overall solution that would apply to anything she forwards me, without her having to change her system. If she were a Hotmail user (HEaven forbid! ;-)) she could forward things to me without bypassing my setup, so it seems a fellow Runbox user should be able to as well . . .

But, anyhow, the easy solution was just for her to forward instead to a forwarding address on my own mail server, so the mesasge comes back in and I can handle it with my own whitelist. I set it up last night (and left the original filter in place on her end as well) so she was forwarding twice, and sure enough this morning I had one copy of the message with her SA header, in my NotWhitelist folder, and one copy with my SA header, in my Inbox. Now that I know it works, I'll just delete the first filter that sends to my Runbox account, and keep the second one.

--Jason

[carverrn]

If you really want everything she forwards you could also check to see if her email address is in the header in this format:

"for username@runbox.com;"

This would tell you that the message was to be delivered to her account.

Forwarding to the external address works fine too but it will count towards both of your bandwidth totals whereas Runbox-to-Runbox sending does not.

Regards,
Rich

[jbs]

Yeah, I thought about that, but so far I've yet to break the 0% barrier in the bandwidth meter. Literally, I've not actually seen it ever bump up over zero (maybe it did at the end of some week when I wasn't paying attention . . .) She uses even less than I do.

But this is just a little text email, probably 2 or 3 kilobytes. Not to worry.

Thanks, Rich!

--Jason

Originally posted by carverrn
If you really want everything she forwards you could also check to see if her email address is in the header in this format:

"for username@runbox.com;"

This would tell you that the message was to be delivered to her account.

Forwarding to the external address works fine too but it will count towards both of your bandwidth totals whereas Runbox-to-Runbox sending does not.

Regards,
Rich

[carverrn]

I kind of figured that. Well the info is here for others that might find it useful then.

Rich

[jbs]

Originally posted by carverrn
I kind of figured that. Well the info is here for others that might find it useful then.

Rich

Yes, for the fabled "Search the Forums" button . . . and posterity.