![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a59c731f34e63023e349ae3a7a0f6df9.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Howdy, I'm seeing the following oddity with header_filter_rules.
I have 2 rules set up. For a given test message, Rule 1 does not match, and Rule 2 does. If I have Rule 1 set to discard, and Rule 2 set to Hold, the message is discarded. If I make the single change of setting Rule 2 to Defer, then the message is accepted.
Any idea why the Action for Rule 1 is being used when Rule 2 is hit? Can anyone else reproduce this? Am I misunderstanding something about Rule processing order?
Using Mailman 2.1.9
Thanks.
-David
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/746f7519ba02fb0d815e59f305c53fa2.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
David R Bosso wrote:
And did you by any chance try setting rule 2's action back to Hold and testing again? The reason I ask, is that when you "Add new item" via the web GUI, a rule gets created with a flag indicating it is 'empty' and this flag isn't tested in processing. It shouldn't matter because either this empty slot will be filled in or it's action remains 'defer', but I may be missing something.
Any idea why the Action for Rule 1 is being used when Rule 2 is hit?
No.
I think your understanding is correct. I haven't tried to duplicate it.
Using Mailman 2.1.9
From source or a package? If a package, which?
Can you provide the contents of header_filter_rules, ideally from the output of
bin/dumpdb lists/<listname>/config.pck
or
bin/config_list -o filename listname
but barring that, a copy/paste from the web interface, and a copy of the test message that illustrates the problem.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a59c731f34e63023e349ae3a7a0f6df9.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
--On May 22, 2007 4:53:05 PM -0700 Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> wrote:
Thanks for offering to help. Yes, I can go back and forth with consistent results.
[snip]
Using Mailman 2.1.9
From source or a package? If a package, which?
Gentoo's ebuild from portage.
'header_filter_rules': [ ( '^Return-Path: (?!(<dbosso@lsit\\.ucsb\\.edu>))', 3, False), ('^Subject: test', 7, False)],
^Return-Path: (?!(<dbosso@lsit\.ucsb\.edu>))
^Subject: test
and a copy of the test message that illustrates the problem.
A mail from me (rule 1 does not match), with the subject "test".
Thanks.
-David
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/746f7519ba02fb0d815e59f305c53fa2.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
David R Bosso wrote:
Thanks for offering to help. Yes, I can go back and forth with consistent results.
Thanks for providing the info I asked for. I will definitely look into this unless someone else solves it in the mean time, but I will not be able to spend any time on it before next week.
Be assured that I won't forget.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/746f7519ba02fb0d815e59f305c53fa2.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
David R Bosso wrote:
Sorry for the long delay in following up. I have tried to duplicate this and I can't. I have the exact header_filter_rules as above and I send a message from me (also doesn't match rule 1) with 'Subject: test' and it is held by rule 2.
I have tested with both the current SpamDetect.py rev 8146 and the 2.1.9 base rev 7750 with the same result. See <http://mailman.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mailman/branches/Release_2_1-maint...> for more including the source of these.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/746f7519ba02fb0d815e59f305c53fa2.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
David R Bosso wrote:
And did you by any chance try setting rule 2's action back to Hold and testing again? The reason I ask, is that when you "Add new item" via the web GUI, a rule gets created with a flag indicating it is 'empty' and this flag isn't tested in processing. It shouldn't matter because either this empty slot will be filled in or it's action remains 'defer', but I may be missing something.
Any idea why the Action for Rule 1 is being used when Rule 2 is hit?
No.
I think your understanding is correct. I haven't tried to duplicate it.
Using Mailman 2.1.9
From source or a package? If a package, which?
Can you provide the contents of header_filter_rules, ideally from the output of
bin/dumpdb lists/<listname>/config.pck
or
bin/config_list -o filename listname
but barring that, a copy/paste from the web interface, and a copy of the test message that illustrates the problem.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a59c731f34e63023e349ae3a7a0f6df9.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
--On May 22, 2007 4:53:05 PM -0700 Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> wrote:
Thanks for offering to help. Yes, I can go back and forth with consistent results.
[snip]
Using Mailman 2.1.9
From source or a package? If a package, which?
Gentoo's ebuild from portage.
'header_filter_rules': [ ( '^Return-Path: (?!(<dbosso@lsit\\.ucsb\\.edu>))', 3, False), ('^Subject: test', 7, False)],
^Return-Path: (?!(<dbosso@lsit\.ucsb\.edu>))
^Subject: test
and a copy of the test message that illustrates the problem.
A mail from me (rule 1 does not match), with the subject "test".
Thanks.
-David
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/746f7519ba02fb0d815e59f305c53fa2.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
David R Bosso wrote:
Thanks for offering to help. Yes, I can go back and forth with consistent results.
Thanks for providing the info I asked for. I will definitely look into this unless someone else solves it in the mean time, but I will not be able to spend any time on it before next week.
Be assured that I won't forget.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/746f7519ba02fb0d815e59f305c53fa2.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
David R Bosso wrote:
Sorry for the long delay in following up. I have tried to duplicate this and I can't. I have the exact header_filter_rules as above and I send a message from me (also doesn't match rule 1) with 'Subject: test' and it is held by rule 2.
I have tested with both the current SpamDetect.py rev 8146 and the 2.1.9 base rev 7750 with the same result. See <http://mailman.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mailman/branches/Release_2_1-maint...> for more including the source of these.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (2)
-
David R Bosso
-
Mark Sapiro