junk mail issue

[bhwong]

Hi,

First, is there a way to get junk email downloaded into POP3 client with a setting on Zimbra server instead of having to amend each and every POP3 client with junk option which will also cause problem in sending email?

Second, is there a way to set interior email never to be marked as junk mail?

[Krishopper]

You can have spam scanning bypassed for an account by doing the following:

zmprov modifyAccount email@domain.com amavisBypassSpamChecks TRUE

[EAH 84]

Originally Posted by Krishopper

You can have spam scanning bypassed for an account by doing the following:

zmprov modifyAccount email@domain.com amavisBypassSpamChecks TRUE

Hi,

I am having a similar issue that...after several nights of testing...I am hoping you guys can shed some light on. I have viewed the various related threads in the forum for pop3 / junk mail issues and none have really yielded an answer as yet.

What I am looking for is a solution where:

1) Users who are connected via pop3 have spam mail tagged in the header e.g. '[SPAM] {subject header}' - this mail then goes into the users inbox, as opposed to junk.

2) Alternatively a solution where junk and inbox mail are merged so pop3 users can view the mail (whilst spam and virus checking is still enabled).

With IMAP connections simply not an option in this scenario, I have tried several possible solutions presented in the forum without success (also noted bug 21062 (Bug 21062 – POP3 server should (optionally) merge Junk and Inbox folders) which suggests functionality like this will be seen in future releases); any input would be appreciated at this point.

Thanks in advance!

EAH 84

[ewilen]

This looks promising but I haven't tested it:
Spam - Mark them, don'f File to Junk ?

To elaborate:

I thought I'd seen somewhere in the forum a way to specify whether spam is moved to Junk or not, but I haven't been able to locate it.

Other posts have indicated that moving to Junk is actually a filter. Presumably this filter is based on a unique value added to the header by amavisd.

If so the solution in the linked post should work since it changes the value that's put into the header, which would fool the filter.

It would be more elegant to delete or modify the filter, of course.