[antispam-f] Re: Deferred message problem
- From: Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:24:41 +0200
On 03 Mar, Richard Porter <ricp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Message 1 deferred on rule 1:
> DEFER Length > 2000000
[snip]
> Message 1 deferred on rule 1:
> Process Marked Message
[snip]
> *** message 1 was deferred earlier. Rule 1 is
> DEFER Length > 2000000
> message 2 now gets deferred on the same rule, but
> !AntiSpam believes it is marked and defers it.
> message 2 should be accepted on rule 26
Not sure if this is still happening these days, but I suppose there's no
reason to expect it to go way by itself. :-)
The interesting bit here is the rule number (1) and the fact the message
was deferred because of its length. Harriet reported something similar
in her message of 7 October (the first one to the list after FreeLists
borked my subscription). I'll investigate.
Regards,
Frank
Other related posts:
