Hello Ryan,

you are right about the verification hash problem. However, since you are about 
to purge those messages, it's probably not that big issue.

Btw. the GUI compares only the message hash values, and the rest of the 
metadata table entries (eg. the retained column) are not used currently.


-------- Original Message --------
From: Ryan Blenis <ryan.ble...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue Nov 13 23:08:59 GMT+01:00 2018
To: piler-user@list.acts.hu
Subject: Re: Rentention-rules and pilerpurge

> > Do you have any idea what I should
> > do  so that more messages are being purged? Especially the retention
> > period seems suspect I think...
> For already archived spam, you should identify them in the metadata
table, eg. check the subject
> field. Then set the retained column for such messages only to the past,
eg. a yesterday
> timestamp, and pilerpurge will take care of them.

Hello Janos,

Seeing your above reply to Marina's post regarding purging data brought me
back to an issue we were trying to clear up (we have a certain email "from"
address we'd like purged, as it is not required in the archive). However,
we lacked the foresight to set up retention rules prior to the email
account spewing out millions of emails.

I figured I'd just go in and manually set the retention date back in the
past as you suggest, however I found the following note on

Note that the retention period is included in the per message verification
digest, so the retention period should not be changed after the message has
been archived.

I've run a test on the database by selecting one email and changing the
retention period to the past and running

pilerpurge -d

to see the effect, and it says it will remove it.

If this is true, what are the ramifications of this and the message
verification digest no longer aligning?

Is this a viable method to get rid of the cruft we've accumulated and would
like to purge?

Thank you.

Reply via email to