[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

maildrop fails regularly



Hi,

I'm hoping the list can save my sanity. I've been trying to get Maildrop
setup, but it keeps on doing weird things.

e.g.:

~/.mailfilter

if ( /^List-Post:.*\@en.tldp/ && /^List-Post:.*\:![a-z]+/ )
log $MATCH2
 to $MAILBOX/tldp-$MATCH2/


~/mailfilter.log

.mailfilter(16): Search of ^List-Post:.*\@en.tldp = 0
.mailfilter(16): Operation: logical and, left hand side=0
.mailfilter(16): Operation: logical and, result=0
.mailfilter(16): IF evaluated, result=0
maildrop: Delivering to /home/roach/mail/tldp-/
maildrop: Unable to create a dot-lock.


This rule did not apply, why does it try to file and why the attempted
dot-lock on a Maildir folder?

I trapped the error and tried to carry on but am still getting dot-lock
errors and dropped mail. The dropped mail is especially worrying as I
need 100% reliability and have no way to ID the missing mail. It isn't
logged and the only way I know that it hasn't been delivered is by
comparing the total number of downloaded and delivered emails.

Here's my present filter file. BTW, I'm not sure lookup() is
working and would appreciate suggestions to replace it in the
"Mailing lists" filter rule. Thanks.


~/.mailfilter

# Maildrop filters

MAILBOX="$HOME/.mail"
DEFAULT="$MAILBOX/inbox/"
logfile "$HOME/mailfilter.log"


# Spam filters
if ( /^From:.*PayPal/ )
 to $MAILBOX/spam/

# Content filters
if ( /^Content-Type: *text\/html/ )
 to $MAILBOX/aachoo/

# Mailing lists

if ( /^Return-Path:.*mutt/ )
 to $MAILBOX/mutt-users/

if ( /^Old-Return-Path:.*debbugs@/ )
 to $MAILBOX/debian-bugs-dist/

if ( /^List-Post:.*\:![a-z0-9-]*/ && lookup( $MATCH2, "subscription" ) )
{
 to $MAILBOX/$MATCH2/
}
else
{
 to $MAILBOX/tldp-$MATCH2/
}

# Blacklist

if ( /^From: *!.*/ && lookup( $MATCH2, "blacklist" ) )
 to $MAILBOX/holding/

if ( hasaddr(robert_spencer@mighty.co.za) )
{
 to $MAILBOX/inbox/
}
else
{
 to $MAILBOX/holding/
}

-- 
Robert "roach" Spencer
Pietermaritzburg
South Africa



Reply to: