F.F. Jacot Guillarmod writes
[...]
> Here's an extract from the offending .forward configuration:
>
[...]
>
> # Mail from rem-conf mailing list
> elif $header_Return-path: contains "rem-conf-request"
> then
> deliver "<ru-list-rem-conf@???>"
> endif
>
[...]
>
> The confusion is that everything works perfectly, except the entry dealing
> with "rem-conf-request" (and variations on this). I've used "exim -bf"
> to test the configuration, and it says it will do the right things,
> but in real life mail from this list stubbornly drops through into my incoming
> mail box.
You would probably have more success using $return_path, not $header_Return-path:.
The "Return-path: " header is usally added at the last possible moment (if the
transport has return_path_add=true) and won't be there when the filter file
decoder is making its decisions. But no doubt your test messages for "exim -bf"
did have such a header! To test correct treatment of $return_path while using
"exim -bf", include the "From " line from a BSD-style mailbox entry in the input,
or use the -f option.
Chris Thompson Cambridge University Computing Service,
Email: cet1@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.
--
* This is sent by the exim-users mailing list. To unsubscribe send a
mail with subject "unsubscribe" to exim-users-request@???
* Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/
