Davide,
I have diagnosed this further to be able to say with certainty, that any
filter returning with errcode 90 will not run the next filter. (The SMAIL
log shows that the offending email was actually delivered, the user
confirmed this.)
So the Nett effect is that all filter processing stops and the email is
delivered.
Having a think about your errcode logic...
You document that you can add 16 to the errcode to stop filter list
processing
So I'm assuming that you check for bit 5 to be on, to stop the filters.
Probably a logical AND 16 or AND 0x10.
4 decimal = 0100 binary - stop email, but process next filter
20 decimal = 1100 binary - stop email, and do not process next filter
90 decimal = 01011010 binary
So that would mean that every alternate 16 numbers would trigger the stop
filters
16-31, 48-63, etc
Or divide the number by 16 and if the integer part is odd then it falls in
to the '16' category.
It really depends on how you have coded this logic.
And I know you never expected some filter writer to return errcodes that
were not on YOUR list, however your documentation is clear and I don't
believe an errcode=90 violates that.
I can probably work-around this by wrapping the EXE in a CMD (not very nice)
but this will get around the issue.
I'll follow up with Dario about his errcodes, but can I suggest that the
next version of xMail limit its errcode interpretation to the published
numbers of 0,4,5,6,7,20,21,22,23 ignoring any other.
I welcome your feedback Davide,
Rob :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rob Arends
Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2006 9:48 PM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Filters stopping with errcode 90
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to track down a non-delivered email.
I have found that the root cause was Dario's AVFilter returned errcode 90.
Which I believe to be 'normal' for a particular behaviour.
The problem is that the next filter did not execute and the email was
dropped.
The filter is a normal 'in filter' and returns '20' when a Virus is found.
It does return various other errcodes, but not the usual xMail documented
codes.
No problem, xMail just ignores the ones it is not looking for.
I had this scary thought that, like DOS cmd file, the errcode is true when
the value is equal OR higher.
So I checked the xMail doco and it clearly states the if the filter does not
return 4,5,6 (and I assume 20,21,22) the message continues.
If all filters return values different from '6, 5 and 4' the message
continues its trip.
I have logs created for filters and smtp, and looking through them, I
clearly see that the email was RECV=OK (smtp), and 2 of 3 filters ran. See
below the filters log excerpt, showing the errcode 90.
pre-data 0 0 d:\Greylist\glst.exe
in 0 90 D:\AvFilter\AvFilter.exe
So the point is, the filter returned 90, why did the next filter not fire -
why was the email not delivered?
I was running 1.21 at the time and are now running 1.22, but looking at the
change log, I don't believe there is any difference in filter handling and
execution.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
Rob :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body
of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line
help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
