[Mailman-Users] multiple header_filter_rules?

[David R Bosso]

--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 
results.

[snip]

>> 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>))',
                                   3,
                                   False),
                               ('^Subject: test', 7, False)],


> or
>
> bin/config_list -o filename listname
>
> but barring that, a copy/paste from the web interface

^Return-Path: (?!(<dbosso at 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


>
> --
> Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net>       The highway is for gamblers,
> San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan
>