Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x

[Matt]

Kevin, A per-domain config can also have an effect.  This very well might not be the case with your issue, but in this context I believe that I should explain further just in case. If you have a message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that fails tests that result in both a ROUTETO and DELETE action for example.com, it might not actually get deleted, instead after failing the ROUTETO action, it will use the config for whatever per-domain/per-user config the ROUTETO was pointed at.  So if it was ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED], then Declude would pull the config for otherdomain.com or [EMAIL PROTECTED] and only execute actions based on that, or at least that is what I understand.  If it didn't fail a DELETE test in otherdomain.com, it would simply be delivered to the ROUTETO address. While most issues that this creates can be worked around, it is unwieldy, excessively complicated, and clearly leads to unexpected results, especially in a multiple domain environment with per-domain configs, or those with per-user configs.  From a high level view, the fix is simple, they just shouldn't use the ROUTETO address's config for determining actions.  They should only use the final recipient in IMail, prior to reaching Declude, for determining all actions. If you post more of your circumstance, maybe one of us can come up with an idea as to what is happening. Matt Kevin Bilbee wrote: We use weightrange and do not use per user configurations. Also the messages that were over our delete weight and not deleted did not contain a routto action??     Kevin Bilbee -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:17 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote: I have not been following the thread in detail, but if some one that is having the problem would change to WEIGHTRANGE instead of WEIGHT and ensure there are no overlappings, I have a feeling the at least part of the "problem" might be resolved. No, this isn't an appropriate solution.  The change makes ROUTETO the final action, and now it has precedence over DELETE.  If you have a filter called BLACKLIST-NO-MATTER-WHAT set to DELETE, and a message fails that test plus it fails something that has a ROUTETO action, it will not be deleted.  This change removes our ability to override ROUTETO in special circumstances.  While most issues will be fixed by preventing the overlapping of weight ranges and the actions, that only applies to weight based things, and this ties our hands when it comes to taking actions regardless of weight.  That's completely unacceptable, and I also assume that it was unintentional; the result of an oversight. If DELETE is to be changed in the way that they did, they must make it be able to target a recipient that has already been tagged with ROUTETO.  It makes no sense to use the changed ROUTETO address for determining further actions.  This will also be very difficult to troubleshoot in some circumstances and also difficult to keep track of. Declude needs to make sure that the actions are not applied based on the ROUTETO address' config, but instead the original recipient's config.  If they did that, all problems would be solved, including the overlapping weight range issue that seemingly has stung so many here. Matt -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ ===================================================== -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =====================================================