[Mailman-Users] multiple header_filter_rules?
David R Bosso
dbosso+lists.mailman at lsit.ucsb.edu
Wed May 23 19:58:28 CEST 2007
--On May 22, 2007 4:53:05 PM -0700 Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> wrote:
> David R Bosso wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
Thanks for offering to help. Yes, I can go back and forth with consistent
>> Using Mailman 2.1.9
> From source or a package? If a package, which?
Gentoo's ebuild from portage.
> Can you provide the contents of header_filter_rules, ideally from the
> output of
> bin/dumpdb lists/<listname>/config.pck
'header_filter_rules': [ ( '^Return-Path:
(?!(<dbosso at lsit\\.ucsb\\.edu>))',
('^Subject: test', 7, False)],
> bin/config_list -o filename listname
> but barring that, a copy/paste from the web interface
^Return-Path: (?!(<dbosso at lsit\.ucsb\.edu>))
> and a copy of
> the test message that illustrates the problem.
A mail from me (rule 1 does not match), with the subject "test".
> Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> The highway is for gamblers,
> San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
More information about the Mailman-Users