I think that must be it.
Thanks to both Phil and Nigel.
[Aside]
I do love the ironies of life.
First: over a thousand people e-mail me to say that I'm clogging their
inbox up with multiple copies of the same mailshot(thus causing Ximian
Connector to fail, as usual).
Secondly, Ximian Evolution keeps sending multiple copies of e-mails out
of my Outbox (but can't delete them) to the Exim list, where I'm trying
to discuss a problem with multiple copies of e-mails (without looking
like a dork and hoping to look half-competent).
Thirdly, I never set this thing up in the first place! (Although I did
review it and considered it perfect, if not elegant, which shows how
little I know).
Fourth and finally, my boss, who did set this up in the first place,
refused to purchase the Exim 4 book for us last month as there were
"more important things to spend money on". Nice.
Anyhow - off to implement Nigel's proper Exim 4 ACL-based solution and
buy the bloody book myself like I should have done in the first place...
Nic (still haven't mastered Outlook)
-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Metheringham
[
mailto:Nigel.Metheringham@dev.InTechnology.co.uk]
Sent: 10 July 2003 16:12
To: exim-users@???
Cc: Nic Doye
Subject: RE: [Exim] System filter: can it go wrong/be ignored?
On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 15:53, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Nic Doye wrote:
>
> > Failing to filter:
> >
> > 2003-07-09 14:45:57 19aFGf-0006h6-00 <= mailing@???
> > H=orion.uk.insnet.net (relay.mail.insnet.cw.net) [194.177.170.11]
> > P=esmtp S=3379 id=E19ZXko-0006gU-00@???
> > 2003-07-09 14:46:06 19aFGf-0006h6-00 **
helen@???
> > <mail-list@???>: Unrouteable address
> > [.....]
>
> There is no information there as to what was in the header lines of
that
> message. Your filter operates on the "To:" header line, doesn't it?
> Suppose that message didn't contain a To: header line?
Additionally as posted to the list the filter file used the syntax:-
if $h_to is "mail-list@???"
If the sender had a to: line like:-
To: "Example Mailing List" <mail-list@???>
then you lose. if you had used "contains" rather than "is" you would do
better, but might still be fooled by other variants. It gets even worse
if the target mailing lists have multiple domain names that can be used
- ie both <mail-list@???> & <mail-list@???>
and even <mail-list@???> all work OK - this latter
one can hit the particular form of ACL I posted earlier too.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
