At 15:07 2000-10-26 -0700, holtzm(_at_)primenet(_dot_)com wrote:
> A. enable verbose logging (verbose=ON)
Already was.
Then you should have indicated as much, and what you interpreted from it.
> B. excerpt what is in the log for the area around this filter
Following are two examples from the .procmail.log. The first one I
couldn't tie to any "From" or "Subject" lines in the log after searching
_way_ back and _way_ forward:
Two separate examples, or one continuing log entry?
il: Assigning "INCLUDERC=/home/holtzm/Procmail/spamtrap.rc"
procmail: Match on
!
"(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)holtzm(_at_)primenet(_dot_)com
That's what ^TO_ expands to. Assuming the recipe you posted is the only
one looking for an inverted match on the address (and was apparently in
spamtrap.rc), this would be your hit. Good so far.
>From atbs18a(_at_)greatmeat(_dot_)nx Thu Oct 26 12:46:43 2000
Subject: Farm Fresh Pork Right To You
Folder: /var/spool/mail/holtzm
And this says it was stored successfully. Presuming these lines
immediatley follow the regexp entry above, what's the problem?
Nothing at all. All spam messages show up in INBOX.
Well, from the logfile entry above, SOMETHING was caught and stored in the
folder. Are you saying THIS *EXACT* message also appeared in the inbox?
This may sound like a dumb question, but are you copying messages somewhere
along in your procmailrc?
You asked for it:
Return-Path: <atbs18a(_at_)greatmeat(_dot_)nx>
[snip]
Uh, isn't this the message that was _filed_ as per the above logfile entry?
> E. Keep in mind that the order in which this filter appears in
> relation to other filters can have a distinct impact.
The spam filter is last in my .procmailrc file
Uh, you'd better rethink that scheme - sure, this particular rule makes
sense to have after mailing lists (where you're actually BCC'd as well),
but by and large, spam should be one of the first things you filter for.
> 2. ^TO_ matches a variety of headers -- including X-Envelope-To:
I noticed one of the headers shows "for <holtzm(_at_)localhost>". Would this
qualify?
Not as per the regexp (see the logfile excerpt) - it doesn't look at the
Received header. Besides, that address doesn't match the address you're
looking for, though one must remember, you're looking for an inverted
condition anyway - that is, messages which DO NOT include your address (and
since this _isn't_ the address string you're looking for, it wouldn't
affect the outcome) - this one both qualfies *AND* appears to have been
filtered accordingly.
I still don't see the problem - what you should do is find a message which
IS NOT filtered into this file, and the logfile entries demonstrating that.
---
Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies. I'll get my copy from the list.
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Post Box 2395 / San Rafael, CA 94912-2395
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail