[Rspamd-Users] First Time: DKIM Signing Only

[Allen, Norton T.]

On 1/26/2024 11:38 AM, Gerald Galster wrote:
>> I think the only real sticking point I am having trouble with now is how to identify the mail that doesn't match either of these conditions: not authenticated and doesn't include the mailing list header. In the "User settings" documentation, there is reference to an 'inverse' syntax: "- inverse match (e.g. it will NOT match when all elements are matched and vice-versa)". This sounds like exactly what I am looking for. Unfortunately, there are no examples, and I haven't been able to get it to work in trivial tests. Any ideas on that?
>>
> Did you try "inverse = true;" or "inverse = yes;" like with "authenticated = true;" ?

I had not, but I have now. I had a group that would match id=nothing, 
and it had a clear effect when I specified id=nothing. When I added 
inverse = true; there was no change in behavior. The rule still matched 
with id=nothing. Same with inverse = yes;

> Are you using priority and is there another rule that might match before this one?
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2frspamd.com%2fdoc%2fconfiguration%2fsettings.html%23settings-structure&c=E,1,mHz-jPDMwkJConqqLQXk306e6U5blHlNKqkxbiaPD161AX_3LTKVQjQcpU3mcpIjZEiVRqcUS4Ya2YHOsuDgAj6oAzNAQXQoX8dRIE9HUo-JJXC7qXDd&typo=1
>
> "priority - high (3), medium (2), low (1) or any positive integer value (default priority is low). Rules with greater priorities are matched first. Starting from version 1.4, Rspamd checks rules with equal priorities in alphabetical order. Once a rule matches, only that rule is applied, and the rest are ignored."
I am not using priority yet, but I have thought about it. The problem 
with that is I need to be able to specify a block that will match 
everything in order to cover all cases (i.e. earlier or higher priority 
blocks for the specific cases, then the catch-all for everything else), 
and I have not found a way to do that either, though still thinking 
about it.