> Lloyd Zusman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> from <> drop
>>
>> However, the message whose headers appear below is not getting
>> caught by any of these rules, and a confirmation is attempted to the
>> address "<>" (in those headers, I changed the my local hostname to
>> something bogus; the rest of the information is exactly as it
>> appears in the original message).
>
> Please show us the corresponding LOGFILE_INCOMING entry so we can see
> what TMDA thought of the message.
I mentioned that a confirmation was attempted. But anyway, here are
the logfile entries:
Date: Wed Sep 24 08:37:17 EDT 2003
Sndr: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Sam" <>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Hi again!
Actn: CONFIRM action_incoming (1701)
Date: Wed Sep 24 08:37:17 EDT 2003
Sndr: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Sam" <>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Hi again!
Actn: CONFIRM pending 1064407037.553.msg (1701)
>> Why is the "from" rule above not catching this email? Could it be
>> due to the name "Sam" in front of the <>?
>
> No, because "from" refers to the address in Return-Path, not "From:".
But the enclosed headers do indeed show <> in the Return-Path.
Hmmm ... but then again ... I just now realized that another rule in
between my MTA logs and before TMDA was inserting a SENDER of
"postmaster". This occurs because one of the quirks of my homegrown
system is that sometimes SENDER isn't being set on some of the paths
through the complex chain of homegrown filters that I have written.
OK. So now, my problem is solved.
Sorry for the bandwidth ... and thanks for helping me see something I
had overlooked before.
--
Lloyd Zusman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
